False. You also get the pat down if you decline the AIT machine, and I've heard from several friends that they got the grope w/o having set off either machine.
It still doesn't address the "shooting unnecessary radiation from an untested machine operated by people without the proper training to operate a medical device" complaint.
I was assuming that everyone on here is aware that declining an AIT means a pat-down will occur. A passenger may also receive a random pat-down, which was just made public about a week ago so that's my error. Even with all of this, less than 3% of passengers receive a pat-down.
If you're going to try and call me out, at least get yours straight as well. An AIT machine is most decidedly not a medical device. TSA didn't exactly just go down to the local hospital and borrow one of their x-ray machines and throw it in the airport. As such, AIT machine operators don't need any kind of medical training. Besides, the machines' processes are heavily automated. All a TSO basically does is look at a picture and click pass or fail (exaggeration, but you get the point). The amount of radiation from these machines is about as much as you receive during 2-3 minutes of flight at altitude, and less than 45 minutes' worth of every day background radiation. To put it in more perspective, one would need to be screened over 200,000 times for the amount of radiation to equal one CT scan. TSA also uses millimeter wave technology machines, which don't emit radiation since their process is different, so opt for those if you are concerned about radiation.
I have yet to see a reputable study to back up any of those numbers. Not to mention, the lack of training on the operators part means that there's no way of knowing if the machines are actually operating correctly. The TSA's refusal to allow screeners to possess dosimeters really adds to their credibility as well.
You should do so with facts, not myths of your own.
Acording to Cha-Cha there are 14 US airlines. Ironiclly, one started service right here in Baton Rouge last week~ Vision Airlines. Its destinations? Fort Walton/Destin and Orlando. I just wonder how many of those pax would rather ride the train ???Eh you wouldn't necessarily see a reduction in the number of airlines (currently 9 in the US, 2 of which are relatively small), but you would see a reduction of shorter regional routes.I'd like to...if we had high speed rail nationwide there would be a few less airlines and more frequent service on the rails. If only we could bring back the Slumbercoaches (the SCA could work two at a time and not have to make up beds unless the room is double or triple sold en route; the terminating station's coach cleaners could strip and re-make the beds)The Acela first class is the closest we come to parlor car service and every time I've ridden it has been full. How many non-NEC residents have ever ridden it let alone seen it? One thing I would do that a large majority of businesses have done for years~ put cameras in the diner and lounge car for the crews protection as well as the pax. If somebody calls Customer Relations and complains about the diner closing at 7 p.m. on a LD train there would be no room for error if the tape was reviewed.If the LSA says the pax was beligerent all that has to be done is re-play the tape. It's a win-win for both sides.I can hear the howls at the union hall now.....
I think the American Medical Association is fairly reputable, don't you? Study is here. I am not fabricating numbers. Don't confuse myths with your selective acceptance of facts.I have yet to see a reputable study to back up any of those numbers. Not to mention, the lack of training on the operators part means that there's no way of knowing if the machines are actually operating correctly. The TSA's refusal to allow screeners to possess dosimeters really adds to their credibility as well.
You should do so with facts, not myths of your own.
I was referring to mainline domestic carriers. I left out Hawaiian, Alaska, Vision, Allegiant, Spirit, and USA3000, which brings the total to 15. I don't know who/what Cha-Cha is, but they probably didn't combine AirTran and Southwest like I did prematurely.
Did you even read the study?
Don't just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about here.
And
The researchers published that six additional cancers will occur over the lifetimes of 100 million people who represent 750 million boardings a year in the U.S.. Still, I'm not sure why the agency would be ok with radiation-generating screening machines, especially when there is a demonstrably safe option available, and I find it pretty bold that any additional cancer is seen as "acceptable." Try telling that to the victim! There must be a reason why the millimeter wave machines haven't been purchased as the primary machine.
Cha-Cha.com has a wealth of info much like Google. BTW, did you count Virgin?I think the American Medical Association is fairly reputable, don't you? Study is here. I am not fabricating numbers. Don't confuse myths with your selective acceptance of facts.I have yet to see a reputable study to back up any of those numbers. Not to mention, the lack of training on the operators part means that there's no way of knowing if the machines are actually operating correctly. The TSA's refusal to allow screeners to possess dosimeters really adds to their credibility as well.
You should do so with facts, not myths of your own.
I was referring to mainline domestic carriers. I left out Hawaiian, Alaska, Vision, Allegiant, Spirit, and USA3000, which brings the total to 15. I don't know who/what Cha-Cha is, but they probably didn't combine AirTran and Southwest like I did prematurely.
Yep!
The taxpayers seem more than happy to fund the dinner theater security theater that goes on in the airports to the tune of a buncha billion dollars.
Is that why passenger enplanements, revenue passenger miles, and available seat miles are all up over 2009 levels? Don't be so quick to conclude that the capacity issues on Amtrak and the rise of companies like Megabus are solely driven by trends in the airline industry, an industry that still carries the largest bulk of paying travelers. Let's not ignore the price of gas, which is the main culprit behind these recent shifts in consumer preferences. Amtrak ridership has been growing steadily for quite some time; the recent gas price spikes only amplifies an existing issue.
The airlines have shifted to an "a la carte" system because of cost, largely due to the price of fuel. In order to keep base fares low, airlines have adopted this model because it enables each passenger to pay for exactly what he or she desires instead of bundling it into one fare. There are flyers who are not interested in advanced seat assignment, do not carry checked bags, don't care to access airport lounges, and who don't want to eat onboard, just as there exists the opposite. The latter will pay more. Baggage fees were the predictable first salvo, since a baggage fee not only increases revenue, but it also decreases aircraft weight and speeds turnaround times. Airlines are for-profit businesses, and as such, they can charge their passengers however they want. The public is not somehow entitled to cheap fares, free luggage, and free meals. It is very unlikely that Ryanair would ever get regulator approval for such a seating setup. The concept isn't new, and it is possible that Ryanair announced it simply for publicity purposes like it has done so many times before. Commercial aircraft have maximum seating capacities set by the manufacturer, a capacity that is closely tied to the amount of emergency exits. An airline simply cannot go over that number. A Boeing spokesman was quoted as saying, "We are not considering standing-only accommodations, nor do we have any plans to do so. Among other things, stringent regulatory requirements - including seats capable of withstanding a force of 16 Gs - pretty much preclude such an arrangement."
Likely story. Airlines don't price their fares based on an abuse factor. :lol: Aside from bag fees and the recent changes in airport security, tell me, how has airline service deteriorated to the point where they now "abuse" their customers?
I agree, but research shows that consumers prefer knowing exactly what they're paying for, even if the fee is mandatory. Similarly, I don't get why one airline (eludes me right now) requires online checkin but charges a $5 fee to do it. If it's not in place already, it's coming IIRC.
"Up over 2009 levels"? That is a Toyota level of PR spin that you don't see on this board. Toyota issued a bunch of press releases in January 2011 congratulating themselves on a 1.1% increase over 2009 sales. 2009 is when their sales plummeted due to the sudden acceleration PR disaster.
What I found funny is that when those extra charges rolled out, the ticket prices did not appear to reduce by a corresponding amount... or any amount for that matter. How is it that US Airways can get me from Pittsburgh PA to Frankfurt Germany in 14 hours for about $750 ... and that includes two meals and handling my luggage, yet it costs $350 for a 2.5 hour jaunt to Ft. Lauderdale and they won't even touch my bags or offer me more than a warm coke? Either U.S. Air is overcharging for the PIT - FLL flight and then attempting to charge me extra for luggage/legroom/early boarding, or they are losing vast amounts of money on the PIT-PHL-FRA flight that I do twice a year.
I think that's Spirit...they've got the more infamous ones, and that's what I was thinking (I thought there was a far more expensive check-in at the airport option). Perhaps a better way to put it is that when I click on the fare, I'd like to see, instead of "$99 from A to B" and then a list of fees, "$129 from A to B; includes the following mandatory fees" and then the list of fees...or at least the "$129 minimum after fees; here's a calculator for the fees you may end up paying".
bag fees, extra leg room fees (hear of "coach plus" yet? it gets you a vast 3 more inches of room), Other "premium seats", Zone 1 and 2 fees (which is just a way to get people who won't pay the checked bag fee to pay more since they'll get first dibs at overhead bins), termination off beverage service on many shorter flights, extra charge for pillows/blankets/etc.)
I like the one where there is a "checked bag fee" but it's more expensive to do it at the airport... as if there was an extra cost to the airline for swiping your card at the kiosk instead of online.
Delta just added what I consider the first reasonable baggage fee I have seen, $5 gets you tracking of your bags. You are emailed the location of your bags as they pass through the system. Just like package tracking.
But why should you have to pay for that? They are probably just allowing consumers to access the baggage tracking software that they already have, and they probably don't add anything extra to your bag to track it.
