WWYD? Dh won't let the kids fly.

[ktgrok]

Check into smaller airports. There is one near me that uses private security instead of the TSA, and doesn't do the groping. Maybe that would appease your husband? (oh, and I agree with him by the way, as does my husband who has a degree in security.)

[Shellydon]

I think you and your DH have to decide if sacrificing your relationship with your parents is worth 'sticking it to" TSA. For me, it would not be. My parents are more important than that.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Also, a single parent traveling alone with children under 12 will not be directed through the new scanners (since the kids are not subject to it and they will not separate parent from child).

 

 

At Christmas, DH and I split up and each took one kid. Since the kids would go through the metal detector, I figured they wouldn't try to grope or scan us. We got in line with several families between us and didn't talk until after we all made it through security. It worked.

[WVNA]

I'm a husband who also refuses to fly and am fortunate that my wife feels the same way I do. The biggest reason we stopped flying was that we believe the US government has trampled on the Constitution too much in the name of keeping us "safe". This is not a meant to attack on any one politician or political party since the two major political parties are both just as guilty. Airport security was our final "No, I will not comply!" moment (

).

 

The other thing people have to remember is that if somebody is willing to die for what they believe in, increasing screening and trampling on Constitutional rights will not stop them. Let's pretend we could make air travel 100% safe from terrorist attacks. There are a lot of other targets they can attack instead. What will happen the first time somebody walks up to a security checkpoint/grocery store/hospital/football stadium/etc with a bomb strapped to their body?

[QueenCat]

:iagree: We fly frequently and have NEVER had an issue.

 

However, I'm still hung up on the "my husband won't LET us fly, but he'll LET us take a train" phraseology. :001_huh: :blink:

 

That type of attitude on the part of my dh SO would not fly here. Pardon the pun.:lol:

 

I thought that was kind of odd myself. My dh will let me know if he doesn't like something, and why.... but "let me", no.... I'm his wife, not his child.

[aggieamy]

We fly several times a year and have never had any trouble with security. (Although one of the airports we use is the KC airport' date=' which is apparently not TSA. I have to agree that is a wonderful airport. Everyone is always so cheerful and helpful.) If my dh were to insist we not fly, he'd be looking for a job closer to my parents. [b']My kids relationship with their grandparents trumps an awful lot- certainly the very remote chance of a bad experience with security[/b].

 

I agree. While out visiting your parents your husband can setup a few interviews and start house hunting in the area because I would be insisting on moving closer to them if there was no way to get to them that didn't take days. Train travel can be fun but I wouldn't want to take a train every year across the country. It's a novelty to me but not my prefered method of travel.

 

I had a plane break down there, and we sat for 4 hours waiting for the part to be flown in.

 

I got to know the Starbucks baristas pretty well :tongue_smilie:there wasn't anywhere else to go or anything else to do!

 

Next time that happens you should let me know because I'd love to meet you. We can discuss homeschooling and travel while they fix the plane. :001_smile:

[Catherine]

I agree. But I guess he's chosen his path. It's a shame the rest of his family has to be brought along for the ride. He's being selfish and short-sighted IMO.

[angela in ohio]

I thought that was kind of odd myself. My dh will let me know if he doesn't like something, and why.... but "let me", no.... I'm his wife, not his child.

 

But I think the OP *is* talking about children. She said, "Dh won't let the kids fly."

 

I have no problem with one parent disagreeing with the other parent's plans, especially if they can make suitable substitute arrangements (the train.) Dh and I both get a say in what our dc do.

[KungFuPanda]

I'd 'let' my husband drive or take the train cross-country with the kids while I flew ahead and enjoyed a few days with my parents. :D If he has the courage of his convictions, he won't mind. He'd either reconsider after one trip, or I could look forward to a few days off at the beginning and end of each trip.

[YLVD]

I'm sorry but I find the OP's husband's thinking to be very selfish -- especially in light of denying his children to visit their grandparents. :glare: Part of me is wondering if he is using this excuse as a way of not seeing his in-laws??

 

My family flies on a regular basis. Dallas Love to Houston Hobby -- ALL OF THE TIME. Son and I fly to see our specialist every month and never in the 3 years we have flown, has my son EVER been touched. The TSA agents in our experience have been very kind and polite. Only once was I asked to go to the side area to get patted down -- as my medic-alert ID bracelet was still on my arm and sounded the alarm. The TSA agent was very apologetic and did the wand (no groping) and quickly let me continue on to my flight. The TSA is employed by the airport, not the airlines. If one really wanted to make an issue or take a stand... go to the fed office regulating it.

 

I agree, this is INCREDIBLY selfish and I would be beyond angry and there is no chance that I'd go along with it. The child and the family relationships are most important.

[Kate in Arabia]

Well, we live so far that there really is no other option for us, and I think my kids see all the extra screening that we always go through as part of the routine of flying. They haven't yet asked why others don't seem to have the same level of scrutiny, and I have always tried to stay matter-of-fact about it so they don't get freaked out when the screeners take me aside and we have to be separated. I *always* get the pat down, it varies with the kids; we've had a couple of unpleasant experiences, unpleasant meaning beyond the basic unpleasantness of being patted down, but frankly I don't think many people would care if I complained -- they'd probably side with the TSA.

[LMA]

This was in the WSJ: just fyi

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335783535660546.html

[Heather in Neverland]

Gracious, if my Dh had that policy he couldn't even keep his job. I would not have my adopted child, and my parents could not be missionaries.

 

Sorry, I just don't agree.

 

:iagree:

 

Airports abroad run the gamut from way worse than what you get in the U.S. to far more lax. We take it in stride. I was subjected to an intense "frisking" when I went to pick up our daughter's immigrant visa at the embassy. Whatever. I wasn't traumatized. I just laughed.

 

For some reason, getting frisked by a female TSA agent or even ogled through a machine just does not bother me in the slightest. My kids aren't upset by it either. Flying is just part of life here so we shrug it off.

 

 

.

[momma2three]

Does your DH think that my family should swim to see our relatives? If we never flew, my kids would have no relationship with their extended family!

 

Neither my kids nor I have ever been groped, FWIW. We all just walk through the metal detectors. And the TSA agents I've met have always been very kind and understanding about having reasonable expectations of toddlers in new experiences following directions.

[Mergath]

I think you and your DH have to decide if sacrificing your relationship with your parents is worth 'sticking it to" TSA. For me, it would not be. My parents are more important than that.

 

:iagree: I can't even fathom the op's dh's thinking.

[Jane in NC]

This was in the WSJ: just fyi

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335783535660546.html

 

This article by the former TSA head raises some good points. He notes that the imposition of airline baggage fees leads to more carry ons which in turn tangles up the check in process. I agree.

 

Previously TSA officials were not to talk to passengers, just process them. Last summer they started an experiment in several cities in which TSA staff would engage passengers in conversation (asking travel related questions), supposedly using Israeli techniques to detect any anxiety or apparent issues which might lead to a second layer of questioning. Some may decry this as a further violation of rights but it seemed quite civilized to be asked how one's vacation was while turning over travel documents.

 

I wonder if some of the people who say they refuse to fly now ever flew? Most people I know who are seasoned travelers for business or pleasure keep traveling.

[Upward Journey]

This was in the WSJ: just fyi

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335783535660546.html

 

Thank for sharing the article!

[stripe]

They haven't yet asked why others don't seem to have the same level of scrutiny, and I have always tried to stay matter-of-fact about it so they don't get freaked out when the screeners take me aside and we have to be separated. I *always* get the pat down.... frankly I don't think many people would care if I complained -- they'd probably side with the TSA.

:grouphug: I hear you.

 

I was warned before I left by an employee of the airline that I'd be searched by customs when I returned. She was right. Customs thought they'd have a big catch with me! They looked very, very disappointed at all my dirty laundry.

 

I have been avoiding flying for some time.

[NanceXToo]

I can see some people thinking that the husband is over-reacting. And maybe he is...maybe he isn't. Either way, he's making a stand against something that makes him uncomfortable on his children's behalf, and I certainly don't blame him for that. All parents do that in different ways all the time.

 

But I'm surprised by all the "he's so selfish" comments. He's not selfish. He's protecting his children. Whether some people think it's over-reacting, over-protective, etc. is besides the point. Protecting his kids is what it is to him. He still made provisions for other ways that they can go travel and visit family. Good for him. Now if he'd said "They're not flying and sorry but no train either, it's too expensive and I'm not paying that kind of price, your family will just have to come here," well, THEN I'd maybe I'd think differently. But he's not.

 

I'm also surprised by some of the comments insinuating the wife should do it anyway and "I'd do this and let HIM go do that" and so forth. I really doubt most of us would go do something with our children that our husbands were VERY against and uncomfortable with, and I know if there was something *I* was very against and uncomfortable with and I said "I don't want my kids doing this" and my husband blew me off and said "Too bad, I'm doing it anyway, you can't tell me what to do, I'm doing this with the kids, YOU go do that if my way makes you so uncomfortable," there would be some SERIOUS problems in this house.

 

OP, take the train. It'll be fun. Make an adventure of it. Respect your husband's comfort level on this one because any parent who has a strong objection for reasons of safety and protection of the kids shouldn't just be brushed aside like their feelings don't matter. And it's hardly like there's NO merit to what he's saying. We've all heard some of the stories. I know some people think "it probably won't happen anyway" or "it's tolerable" but plenty of other people don't think that way, and he's one of them, and, really, how do you argue with that? If I felt strongly about something like that, I wouldn't want my spouse fighting with me about it. (As it is, we NEVER fly so I haven't had to make that choice, myself).

[momma2three]

I can see some people thinking that the husband is over-reacting. And maybe he is...maybe he isn't. Either way, he's making a stand against something that makes him uncomfortable on his children's behalf, and I certainly don't blame him for that. All parents do that in different ways all the time.

 

But I'm surprised by all the "he's so selfish" comments. He's not selfish. He's protecting his children. Whether some people think it's over-reacting, over-protective, etc. is besides the point. Protecting his kids is what it is to him. He still made provisions for other ways that they can go travel and visit family. Good for him. Now if he'd said "They're not flying and sorry but no train either, it's too expensive and I'm not paying that kind of price, your family will just have to come here," well, THEN I'd maybe I'd think differently. But he's not.

 

I'm also surprised by some of the comments insinuating the wife should do it anyway and "I'd do this and let HIM go do that" and so forth. I really doubt most of us would go do something with our children that our husbands were VERY against and uncomfortable with, and I know if there was something *I* was very against and uncomfortable with and I said "I don't want my kids doing this" and my husband blew me off and said "Too bad, I'm doing it anyway, you can't tell me what to do, I'm doing this with the kids, YOU go do that if my way makes you so uncomfortable," there would be some SERIOUS problems in this house.

 

OP, take the train. It'll be fun. Make an adventure of it. Respect your husband's comfort level on this one because any parent who has a strong objection for reasons of safety and protection of the kids shouldn't just be brushed aside like their feelings don't matter. And it's hardly like there's NO merit to what he's saying. We've all heard some of the stories. I know some people think "it probably won't happen anyway" or "it's tolerable" but plenty of other people don't think that way, and he's one of them, and, really, how do you argue with that? If I felt strongly about something like that, I wouldn't want my spouse fighting with me about it. (As it is, we NEVER fly so I haven't had to make that choice, myself).

 

If my DH were even passively preventing the formation of a strong relationship between my kids and my parents because of a paranoid fear that's just not based on reality AND which makes no sense as a protest (as others have pointed out, the airlines don't have any control over these measures, and most of their business is business travelers anyway) then that would be a deal breaker for me, and something that would not stand.

[Aelwydd]

My dh, our ds, and I haven't flown since a year and a half ago, when we went to Florida. We had driven down the year before. Even with just three people in a 7-passenger minivan, I won't mince words. It sucked. Mostly because driving/ sitting in a vehicle for 20+ hours put enormous strain on my back, and I have a bad sciatic nerve.

 

My dh just hated it because he hates long drives.

 

So, despite the fact I hadn't flown in seven years, and detested the circus presented in the media that is airline travel, we decided to fly down the next year. Train travel wasn't an option, thanks to Amtrak never restoring direct service from Texas to Florida after Katrina.

 

Here was our experience:

 

Departure day, dh and our son met me at the airport (I worked third shift the night before). I had printed up our boarding passes at work, and we didn't have any checked bags.

 

We got in line at security, behind maybe two people. Took off our shoes, placed bags on the conveyor belt, and passed through the main scanner as directed. Claimed our bags on the other side, and put our shoes on. Got on the plane and flew to Florida.

 

Total security time: 1 minute.

 

There was no groping or interrogation. It was a totally unremarkable experience. Very anticlimactic.

 

Coming back from Orlando, I think we had 10 people in front of us, so a slightly longer wait time. Same deal. Take off shoes, walk through scanner, put shoes back on and claim bags.

 

It happens to be that my dh is the one who favors flying over driving. To him, it's about what's safest for his family. Flying is statistically safer than either train ride or driving. It's also a heck of a lot less exhausting for us. Two and a half hours down, and the same back.

 

You might want to present that argument to your dh, that his kids are less likely to be an in accident in a plane, than on a highway or even on a train. As far as the radiation exposure goes, I still don't understand why people object to the x-ray, but ignore the fact that flying exposes one to higher levels of radiation, because you have much less atmosphere up there protecting you. Yet pilots and flight attendants and business travelers deem that exposure to be acceptable.

 

So, if it's philosophical, that's fine if he objects to it on those grounds. I agree with him that it's one more example of the government hemming us all in. But refraining from flying isn't circumnavigating that control. It still exists in may forms throughout our society, it's just we're conditioned not to notice it in those areas.

[Lady Florida.]

If my DH were even passively preventing the formation of a strong relationship between my kids and my parents because of a paranoid fear that's just not based on reality AND which makes no sense as a protest (as others have pointed out, the airlines don't have any control over these measures, and most of their business is business travelers anyway) then that would be a deal breaker for me, and something that would not stand.

 

:iagree:

[NanceXToo]

If my DH were even passively preventing the formation of a strong relationship between my kids and my parents because of a paranoid fear that's just not based on reality AND which makes no sense as a protest (as others have pointed out, the airlines don't have any control over these measures, and most of their business is business travelers anyway) then that would be a deal breaker for me, and something that would not stand.

 

He's not preventing it. :confused: He's offering an alternative means. And he probably sees it as a childrens' safety and personal rights issue, more than a "protest" issue.

[Alyeska]

I can see some people thinking that the husband is over-reacting. And maybe he is...maybe he isn't. Either way, he's making a stand against something that makes him uncomfortable on his children's behalf, and I certainly don't blame him for that. All parents do that in different ways all the time.

 

But I'm surprised by all the "he's so selfish" comments. He's not selfish. He's protecting his children. Whether some people think it's over-reacting, over-protective, etc. is besides the point. Protecting his kids is what it is to him. He still made provisions for other ways that they can go travel and visit family. Good for him. Now if he'd said "They're not flying and sorry but no train either, it's too expensive and I'm not paying that kind of price, your family will just have to come here," well, THEN I'd maybe I'd think differently. But he's not.

 

I'm also surprised by some of the comments insinuating the wife should do it anyway and "I'd do this and let HIM go do that" and so forth. I really doubt most of us would go do something with our children that our husbands were VERY against and uncomfortable with, and I know if there was something *I* was very against and uncomfortable with and I said "I don't want my kids doing this" and my husband blew me off and said "Too bad, I'm doing it anyway, you can't tell me what to do, I'm doing this with the kids, YOU go do that if my way makes you so uncomfortable," there would be some SERIOUS problems in this house.

 

OP, take the train. It'll be fun. Make an adventure of it. Respect your husband's comfort level on this one because any parent who has a strong objection for reasons of safety and protection of the kids shouldn't just be brushed aside like their feelings don't matter. And it's hardly like there's NO merit to what he's saying. We've all heard some of the stories. I know some people think "it probably won't happen anyway" or "it's tolerable" but plenty of other people don't think that way, and he's one of them, and, really, how do you argue with that? If I felt strongly about something like that, I wouldn't want my spouse fighting with me about it. (As it is, we NEVER fly so I haven't had to make that choice, myself).

 

:iagree: with this post 100%.

 

When we run into situations that don't seem 'logical' to me, I try my best to put myself in my dh's shoes and look at it from his perspective. He isn't some villian who is against me. He is my dh who loves us and wants what is best for us.

 

Going anyway...doing what you (collective you) want with the kids despite what dh thinks...that is a great way to erode a marriage. If my dh were to do that to me...? That would be the ultimate hurt and disrespect.

[delaney]

We fly with the kids and I'm sorry but I just can't get myself into a tizzy over it. I am not driving to FL from here. We have never been asked to pull one of our kids out. They don't even have to take their shoes off anymore. It is hard to defend your country against forces that don't play by the rules.

[angela in ohio]

He isn't some villian who is against me. He is my dh who loves us and wants what is best for us.

 

:hurray:

[Harriet Vane]

I can see some people thinking that the husband is over-reacting. And maybe he is...maybe he isn't. Either way, he's making a stand against something that makes him uncomfortable on his children's behalf, and I certainly don't blame him for that. All parents do that in different ways all the time.

 

But I'm surprised by all the "he's so selfish" comments. He's not selfish. He's protecting his children. Whether some people think it's over-reacting, over-protective, etc. is besides the point. Protecting his kids is what it is to him. He still made provisions for other ways that they can go travel and visit family. Good for him. Now if he'd said "They're not flying and sorry but no train either, it's too expensive and I'm not paying that kind of price, your family will just have to come here," well, THEN I'd maybe I'd think differently. But he's not.

 

I'm also surprised by some of the comments insinuating the wife should do it anyway and "I'd do this and let HIM go do that" and so forth. I really doubt most of us would go do something with our children that our husbands were VERY against and uncomfortable with, and I know if there was something *I* was very against and uncomfortable with and I said "I don't want my kids doing this" and my husband blew me off and said "Too bad, I'm doing it anyway, you can't tell me what to do, I'm doing this with the kids, YOU go do that if my way makes you so uncomfortable," there would be some SERIOUS problems in this house.

 

OP, take the train. It'll be fun. Make an adventure of it. Respect your husband's comfort level on this one because any parent who has a strong objection for reasons of safety and protection of the kids shouldn't just be brushed aside like their feelings don't matter. And it's hardly like there's NO merit to what he's saying. We've all heard some of the stories. I know some people think "it probably won't happen anyway" or "it's tolerable" but plenty of other people don't think that way, and he's one of them, and, really, how do you argue with that? If I felt strongly about something like that, I wouldn't want my spouse fighting with me about it. (As it is, we NEVER fly so I haven't had to make that choice, myself).

 

:iagree: Well said.

 

I also find it unreasonable that because SOME people have had nothing but good experiences with airport security, that somehow invalidates the concerns.

 

I have similar conversations with people who have always lived in safe, suburban neighborhoods. Often such people simply do NOT understand the difficulties those who live in inner-city urban areas face each day. My neighbors in the city spent YEARS bribing the garbage men to come pick up their garbage. Yes, bribing. When I tell suburbanites this they are incredulous and sometimes don't believe such measures were necessary. A common response is also for them to say, "Well, that should be reported!" However, reporting things in that neighborhood results in NOTHING. Literally, no response. Those suburbanites had never lived with the reality of nonexistent city services, and tend to scorn the very real difficulties inner city residents face.

 

The point is that there ARE abuses. There will be abuses in ANY system, because any system run by people will have some who will not act with integrity. The key is to make sure the system is set up to LIMIT the possibility of abuses. Right now, as things stand, there is a dangerous imbalance of power in the name of "safety" and the results are eroded liberties, bad experiences for some travelers, risky exposures to a minimally tested medical procedure (back scatter xray), and we are no safer than we were before.

[kalanamak]

:iagree: I can't even fathom the op's dh's thinking.

 

I have to say thank you to the OP for making me see, yet again, the sunny side of having an overly mellow husband. :grouphug:

[kalanamak]

His silent stand to not allow his children to fly to see family is, at most, hollow and ineffective.

 

 

:iagree: There has not be a significant groundswell about this. Unlikely one will start now. His stand is for him, not because it is actually doing something. Can you divert him to being obsessed with only buying American or something? ;)

[Aelwydd]

:iagree: Well said.

 

I also find it unreasonable that because SOME people have had nothing but good experiences with airport security, that somehow invalidates the concerns.

 

 

The point is that there ARE abuses. There will be abuses in ANY system, because any system run by people will have some who will not act with integrity. The key is to make sure the system is set up to LIMIT the possibility of abuses. Right now, as things stand, there is a dangerous imbalance of power in the name of "safety" and the results are eroded liberties, bad experiences for some travelers, risky exposures to a minimally tested medical procedure (back scatter xray), and we are no safer than we were before.

 

As I said in my post, I agree that the government has too much control. (I actually believe our government to be progressively fascist.) However, I shared my positive experience to point out that the idea that a trip must involve invasive procedures is not true. The OP's post read to me as if her dh believes that traveling by air automatically equates body searches and groping. These things do occur, but they generally aren't geared towards children, and many passengers never get frisked like that.

 

My 80-something year old grandmother did get the rigor moral when she traveled, thanks to the nitroglycerin lotion she used setting off every single explosives alarm at the checkpoint. She was gently patted down, by a female TSA agent, and detained for several minutes while they ran tests on some of her items. It was frustrating, but we kept our cool, and she was given the go-ahead to fly.

 

Do I think this is a good thing? Or necessary? Or improves safety? No, no, and no. It's barely tolerable, IMO. However, I don't distinguish between this invasion of my privacy, and say, the government requiring passports to fly to Canada or Mexico, or the government being able to tap citizens' phones, or the government deciding to subsidize the corn industry, while giving subsidies to Big Pharma to develop new drugs to "help" people with diabetes and heart disease, secondary to a diet full of HFCS. And then locking up other citizens for smoking pot. I think the government allows private corporations way too much control of media and educational sources.

 

The point is, government control and coercion are everywhere. I don't disagree with the OP's dh for taking a political or philosophical stance against TSA's policies, but I don't necessarily agree that disallowing his kids to fly really protects them from government intrusion. It's just that it's so ubiquitous, that many people probably don't even notice it, until it's especially egregious, such as airport X-ray machines.

[LibraryLover]

I think most people realize so many TSA policies are ineffective, racist, and even ridiculous. Flying itself is ridiculous. Each time I am in the air, I get a chill...how on earth does this work. lol It's a miracle. I am in awe that milions of regular folks can travel this way. In the morning I am looking at snow and slush and gray, and then 3 hours later, I end up on warm & sunny palm -treed beach? Wow. Yes, I am a dork. Taking off my shoes seems a small price to pay.

 

And as I said earlier, if my dh decided he wasn't going to fly, he'd be unemployed and we'd be on government assistance. One month, he was on a plane about 18 times. My dh, at the time of 9/11, looked like one of the terrorists. Now that he is older and a bit gray, he is getting less scrutiny. ;) Of course, he is a familiar sight to the employees at our local airport, so that also helps. Dh has also said TSA is changing, especially in reguard to children. 9/11 did change the world, but I have to say that when I was in Europe several years ago, pre 9/11, security there was unbelievable. The line in Switzerland to get my visa for France was a mile long. It took forever to get through security, and there was a lot of patting going down, and pawing through suitcases at the airports, and that is still the case today. I was stopped several times going in and out of the subway in France and asked for my ID (because I was with a man who looked 'Arab', I'm sure). Americans aren't used to this, but it's not exactly news to others.

Edited April 15, 2012 by LibraryLover

[T'smom]

:iagree: Well said.

 

I also find it unreasonable that because SOME people have had nothing but good experiences with airport security, that somehow invalidates the concerns.

 

I have similar conversations with people who have always lived in safe, suburban neighborhoods. Often such people simply do NOT understand the difficulties those who live in inner-city urban areas face each day. My neighbors in the city spent YEARS bribing the garbage men to come pick up their garbage. Yes, bribing. When I tell suburbanites this they are incredulous and sometimes don't believe such measures were necessary. A common response is also for them to say, "Well, that should be reported!" However, reporting things in that neighborhood results in NOTHING. Literally, no response. Those suburbanites had never lived with the reality of nonexistent city services, and tend to scorn the very real difficulties inner city residents face.

 

The point is that there ARE abuses. There will be abuses in ANY system, because any system run by people will have some who will not act with integrity. The key is to make sure the system is set up to LIMIT the possibility of abuses. Right now, as things stand, there is a dangerous imbalance of power in the name of "safety" and the results are eroded liberties, bad experiences for some travelers, risky exposures to a minimally tested medical procedure (back scatter xray), and we are no safer than we were before.

 

We're not comaparing inner-city neighborhoods with suburban neighborhoods- we're comparing airports to airports. Perhaps the exact same ones, though I don't expect the OP to tell us where she lives.

 

Bad things could happen any time you walk out your door. Statistically, it's less likely that something bad will happen while you're flying.

 

I don't want anyone to assume my post was advocating going behind dh's back and doing it anyway. I would NEVER advise that. In my situation, when we decided to take a job far away from my parents, it was discussed and understood that travel to my parents' would be a priority. If we weren't able to travel back frequently, for whatever reason, we would br looking for a solution- like moving close enough to drive.

[TranquilMind]

Dh thinks that the TSA situation is in direct violation w/ American liberties -- and is just the beginning of us lobsters getting boiled.

 

And, no, he doesn't think that the TSA methods are keeping us safe. Even the former TSA director is saying that the entire thing is ineffective.

 

I agree with dh. I do. But we live thousands of miles from my parents and my kids want to visit them. Yes, my parents visit us twice a year, but it's breaking my heart that we can't hop a plane and see my parents.

 

I'm not close to them, but my kids love them. Dh says that the only way to get the airlines to listen is to hurt them financially.

 

Still. . . it's so hard. Dh has agreed to let us take a cross country train trip to visit. (An exciting thing for us because we all love trains. We've done a couple of overnights and just loved it.) But it's very, very pricey.

 

Thanks for listening. :(

 

Alley

I totally agree with your husband. Slowly boiling the lobsters is a good metaphor for what is happening in this country.

 

However, Kids under 12 are no longer touched all over, from what I read. Are yours under 12?

 

If I wanted to see the parents, I'd do a number of things:

 

Check the no-naked scanner list. You can find this online somewhere. I remember reading it. My city does the naked scanner thing. If yours does not, you might find the process a little easier.

 

Or go to a smaller or remote airport.

 

Or see if anyone local is flying to the location you want to go. Sometimes private planes have extra seats they will fill. A guy at church once told us that he regularly flew from our city to a nice location in Florida, so tell him if we ever wanted to go and if he could accommodate us, he would. Maybe there is someone like that for you.

 

I'd rather drive than be stuck on a train, I think. But it might be a nice adventure.

[TranquilMind]

I think you and your DH have to decide if sacrificing your relationship with your parents is worth 'sticking it to" TSA. For me, it would not be. My parents are more important than that.

This isn't what it is about at all. By that logic, Rosa Parks was "selfish" for trying to stick it to the bus company. No...it just had wrong policies that she protested. If only there were some reasonable protest possible on this Constitution-violating policy.

 

I don't even recognize this country half the time.

 

And there are many other options rather than using a TSA groping airport. Many people have mentioned them, from smaller airports to private planes to driving.

[TranquilMind]

I can see some people thinking that the husband is over-reacting. And maybe he is...maybe he isn't. Either way, he's making a stand against something that makes him uncomfortable on his children's behalf, and I certainly don't blame him for that. All parents do that in different ways all the time.

 

But I'm surprised by all the "he's so selfish" comments. He's not selfish. He's protecting his children. Whether some people think it's over-reacting, over-protective, etc. is besides the point. Protecting his kids is what it is to him. He still made provisions for other ways that they can go travel and visit family. Good for him. Now if he'd said "They're not flying and sorry but no train either, it's too expensive and I'm not paying that kind of price, your family will just have to come here," well, THEN I'd maybe I'd think differently. But he's not.

 

I'm also surprised by some of the comments insinuating the wife should do it anyway and "I'd do this and let HIM go do that" and so forth. I really doubt most of us would go do something with our children that our husbands were VERY against and uncomfortable with, and I know if there was something *I* was very against and uncomfortable with and I said "I don't want my kids doing this" and my husband blew me off and said "Too bad, I'm doing it anyway, you can't tell me what to do, I'm doing this with the kids, YOU go do that if my way makes you so uncomfortable," there would be some SERIOUS problems in this house.

 

OP, take the train. It'll be fun. Make an adventure of it. Respect your husband's comfort level on this one because any parent who has a strong objection for reasons of safety and protection of the kids shouldn't just be brushed aside like their feelings don't matter. And it's hardly like there's NO merit to what he's saying. We've all heard some of the stories. I know some people think "it probably won't happen anyway" or "it's tolerable" but plenty of other people don't think that way, and he's one of them, and, really, how do you argue with that? If I felt strongly about something like that, I wouldn't want my spouse fighting with me about it. (As it is, we NEVER fly so I haven't had to make that choice, myself).

It is nice to hear a voice of reason here.

[TranquilMind]

LibraryLover:I think most people realize so many TSA policies are ineffective, racist, and even ridiculous. Flying itself is ridiculous. Each time I am in the air, I get a chill...how on earth does this work. lol It's a miracle. I am in awe that milions of regular folks can travel this way. In the morning I am looking at snow and slush and gray, and then 3 hours later, I end up on warm & sunny palm -treed beach? Wow. Yes, I am a dork. Taking off my shoes seems a small price to pay.

 

Taking off my shoes? Not a problem at ALL. Bring it on. If you are asserting I only need to take off my shoes to get through security, I'm totally on board.

 

Some woman jamming her hand down my pants and my daughter's and feeling me up all over? Back off, *&^&^. I'd have a very hard time not hitting someone who did this.

 

 

And as I said earlier, if my dh decided he wasn't going to fly, he'd be unemployed and we'd be on government assistance. One month, he was on a plane about 18 times.

 

Ok, well your husband has self-selected into this kind of work, because he thinks this is a reasonable requirement.

 

 

I was stopped several times going in and out of the subway in France and asked for my ID (because I was with a man who looked 'Arab', I'm sure). Americans aren't used to this, but it's not exactly news to others.

 

That must be annoying, but at least you weren't a 95 year old woman in a wheelchair who was told to remove her diaper. The Arab-looking man is just going to draw more scrutiny due to past events, and hopefully he can quickly establish his purpose for flying. To subject the old lady to this for theatrical purposes is just beyond ridiculous. And it happens all over.

[LibraryLover]

I agree that some polices are ridiculous. I've said that all along. There have been changes, and there will be more. Not flying is not an effective stragey, imo. Rosa Parks, as someone mentioned, took a stand, but she didn't stop taking the bus. (Meaning she took a stand while on the bus. I know about the boycott. ;))

 

My dh is a scientist, not a pilot. He had no idea when he was in school that he would travel as he does. He's an in-demand guy, what can I tell ya? :D

 

I actually didn't find the ID checks annoying at all. I thought it was interesting, and just pointing out security measures are not particularly new or American. The long security checks were a pain, but even then, that was their policy and I chose to travel to Europe. Nobody has stuck there hands down my front, although I have been patted down. I don't think it was worth their time to pat me down, but it didn't bother me a bit, although I can see how it would be disturbing to some. I also went through the naked scanner last year. I had to force myself to avoid winking, you know-- to aknowledge any thrill I might have given. ;) I think it's more wasted time to scan me, but I wanted to go somewhere, so I accepted it. Further, if they are going to scan, there would be an uproar if they let the braless blonds in sundresses through, but the modestly dressed women in veils or headscarves were the only ones scanned. Nobody made me fly. I frankly wish fewer people would fly (although that would be an economic disaster) so I could always get a window seat and/or a First Class upgrade.

 

I don't care if people fly or not. I am sharing my experiences. I can have an opinion and state them. You don't have to agree. I don't think not flying does a gosh darn thing to change security policies. I do understand people not wanting to get patted down, even as it doesn't bother me. I wouldn't like to have to take off my diaper, and that is going too far, although it would be a very creative way to get a bomb on board. Who would expect grandma to be packing? I do feel sorry that happened. I'm sure that was terrible for her. TSA is absolutely flawed.

 

 

Taking off my shoes? Not a problem at ALL. Bring it on. If you are asserting I only need to take off my shoes to get through security, I'm totally on board.

 

Some woman jamming her hand down my pants and my daughter's and feeling me up all over? Back off, *&^&^. I'd have a very hard time not hitting someone who did this.

 

 

 

 

Ok, well your husband has self-selected into this kind of work, because he thinks this is a reasonable requirement.

 

 

 

That must be annoying, but at least you weren't a 95 year old woman in a wheelchair who was told to remove her diaper. The Arab-looking man is just going to draw more scrutiny due to past events, and hopefully he can quickly establish his purpose for flying. To subject the old lady to this for theatrical purposes is just beyond ridiculous. And it happens all over.

Edited April 15, 2012 by LibraryLover

[eternalknot]

Next time that happens you should let me know because I'd love to meet you. We can discuss homeschooling and travel while they fix the plane. :001_smile:

 

 

:D For sure! (And the baristas would probably give you a freebie just to thank you for taking me off of their hands!) We're doing SOTW4 next year and have tentative plans to visit your WW1 museum, so maybe we can circumvent the bad plane part and still get to meet up LOL.

 

 

 

OP, I don't agree with your husband but I respect his taking a stand that he feels is important. I'm sorry he's taking a bit of a beating in the thread, because I don't think he's being a tyrant - he's just making choices that he feels are best for his kids, based on what he knows and believes to be true. I'd even go so far as to loosely compare it to one's decision to homeschool.

 

I hope you're able to reach a solution that each of you feels comfortable with. We all have our hot-button issues and we all have those hills we're willling to die on (even when they seem minor to others). It becomes important, though, to make sure we're not dying in vain; that our death goes noticed. I'm not sure that a stand like this huts anyone but your own family. Why? Well, the TSA doesn't even know that you're taking a stand.

 

(Not to mention, while not a regular and on-going presence, the TSA does do intermittent, unpublished checks at Amtrak stations. Have your husband research "VIPR" - not to challenge him, but so he can see that the issue is bigger than he may realize.) (Well, on second thought, maybe you oughtn't, lest that cause him to cancel your trip altogether :()

 

I do share your husband's opinion on the broader political issue, and would encourage him to consider a more pro-active role in fighting the government (than this more reactive role that goes unnoticed by the powers that be).

 

:grouphug:

[hana]

This isn't what it is about at all. By that logic, Rosa Parks was "selfish" for trying to stick it to the bus company. No...it just had wrong policies that she protested.

 

Not even a close comparison.

 

ETA: In response to WWYD--when we first got together (stepchildren were involved), we agreed that, when we disagree on parenting, the more conservative (more cautious, safer, etc.) parenting choice wins. So, in this case, if I couldn't change his mind fairly easily, we'd be on the train.

Edited April 15, 2012 by hana

[TranquilMind]

I agree that some polices are ridiculous. I've said that all along. There have been changes, and there will be more. Not flying is not an effective stragey, imo. Rosa Parks, as someone mentioned, took a stand, but she didn't stop taking the bus.

 

My dh is a scientist, not a pilot. He had no idea when he was in school that he would travel as he does. He's an in-demand guy, what can I tell ya? :D

 

I actually didn't find the ID checks annoying at all. I thought it was interesting, and just pointing out security measures are not particularly new or American. The long security checks were a pain, but even then, that was their policy and I chose to travel to Europe. Nobody has stuck there hands down my front, although I have been patted down. I don't think it was worth their time to pat me down, but it didn't bother me a bit, although I can see how it would be disturbing to some. I also went through the naked scanner. I had to avoid winking, you know-- to aknowledge any thrill I might have given. I don't think it's effective, but I wanted to go somewhere, so I accepted it. Nobody made me fly. I frankly wish fewer people would fly (although that would be an economic disaster) so I could always get get a window seat and/or a First Class upgrade.

 

I don't care if people fly or not. I don't think not flying does a gosh darn thing to change security policies. I do understand people not wanting to get patted down, even as it doesn't bother me. I wouldn't like to have to take off my diaper, and that is going too far, although it would be a very creative way to get a bomb on board. Who would expect grandma to be packing? I do feel sorry that happened. I'm sure that was terrible for her.

No, she DID stop taking the bus. The Montgomery bus boycott lasted over a year. They ALL stopped taking the bus for an extended period of time in order to force the National City Lines company to feel a financial hit for this policy. They persisted until the end of 1956, when the Browder v. Gayle ruling came down that segregation on bus lines was unconstitutional.

[TranquilMind]

Not even a close comparison.

 

ETA: In response to WWYD--when we first got together (stepchildren were involved), we agreed that, when we disagree on parenting, the more conservative (more cautious, safer, etc.) parenting choice wins. So, in this case, if I couldn't change his mind fairly easily, we'd be on the train.

Not true. Both are about Constitutional violations. Rosa Parks just had the support of the rest of the Montgomery bus riders, where flyers who object to the unconstitutional nature of these policies have no support, because everyone wants to do what he wants to do.

[kalanamak]

ETA: In response to WWYD--when we first got together (stepchildren were involved), we agreed that, when we disagree on parenting, the more conservative (more cautious, safer, etc.) parenting choice wins. So, in this case, if I couldn't change his mind fairly easily, we'd be on the train.

 

I believe comparing commercial airflight to trains makes trains the *less safe, less cautious choice*. It is clearly safer if you are talking about the population in general: trains kill hundreds a year who are not on the train (crossings, etc). (The drama of a whole plane full of people dying overshadows the various killed here and there by derailments.)

 

The OP's husband isn't talking safety, but civil protest. Not sure how civil protest could be called safer, more conservative.

[Harriet Vane]

We're not comaparing inner-city neighborhoods with suburban neighborhoods- we're comparing airports to airports. Perhaps the exact same ones' date=' though I don't expect the OP to tell us where she lives.

 

[/quote']

 

The point of my example is simply to say that just because one person's experience is more positive than another person's does NOT render the negative experiences or concerns invalid.

[LibraryLover]

The point of my example is simply to say that just because one person's experience is more positive than another person's does NOT render the negative experiences or concerns invalid.

 

 

I don't think negative experiences are invalid. Even as a frequent flyer, I have concerns.

[kalanamak]

Rosa Parks just had the support of the rest of the Montgomery bus riders, where flyers who object to the unconstitutional nature of these policies have no support, because everyone wants to do what he wants to do.

 

You would like people forced into doing things they don't want to do, like supporting flyers who object? There are a zillion "causes" out there I would not like to be forced into supporting. YES, everyone wants to do what he wants to do! Basic human nature.

 

While everyone gets to have an opinion about what is or isn't unconstitutional, their opinion is just that if a legally established judicial body doesn't say it is so. (And some people are so hot to have their opinion carried out, they bomb a federal building.)

[LibraryLover]

No, she DID stop taking the bus. The Montgomery bus boycott lasted over a year. They ALL stopped taking the bus for an extended period of time in order to force the National City Lines company to feel a financial hit for this policy. They persisted until the end of 1956, when the Browder v. Gayle ruling came down that segregation on bus lines was unconstitutional.

 

 

Yes. I know. I meant she took a stand while on the bus. Got herself arrested.

 

TSA polices affect everyone- black, white, and every nationality. I think we're a work in progress, security measures-wise, for sure. People can't stop flying. The entire nation would come to a business halt. That would mean economic devastation for the entire country, with international repercussions.

 

Every time I am going through airport security I consider the ineffectiveness of certain policies. I know some admire Israel's airport policies, but I also don't think anyone would like to try to fly in and out of Israel without an Israeli passport. Talk about horror stories. Not to mention the tiny size of that nation. They are not dealing with the US stats of over a million passengers flying daily from 14,000 airports. When something does happen again, TSA will be blamed. I just Googled. 1.73 million people fly in the US daily, which translates into well over 600 million people a year going through security. We hear some horror stories about people being wronged by TSA, but percentage-wise, it's pretty miniscule. Not saying it's right, but consider the numbers.

 

ETA: I found another site that puts the number of US flyers at 2 million per day, and another which states 800 million per year.

Edited April 15, 2012 by LibraryLover

[justasque]

I flew recently, and it went very smoothly both times. At LAX, they had the x-rays. I pleasantly asked for a pat-down instead for me and dd. They were very respectful, and carefully clarified that I was ok with the metal detector (just not the x-ray) before allowing dd through. They declined to pat down dd, and mine was a very simple patting of the legs, up to about mid-thigh. At PHL, it was even smoother. No x-ray machine, and a very simple pat-down of the legs for me and none for dd. We both travel in long skirts and leggings. Frankly, it went significantly smoother than the old days, when I would get wanded and set off the beeper for all kinds of things - underwire, pocket change, denim rivets, various zippers. They seem to be more careful about not separating kids from parents than they once were.

 

I've learned, also, how to make it go as smoothly as possible. No underwires, bring/wear socks so you don't have to go barefoot, pack so liquids and laptops are accessible, pack knowing that pockets must be emptied (I stash it all in my purse), put your purse on the belt last so you can keep an eye on it, etc. We take a minute after the screening to redistribute things and pack up again.

 

My family and I, hobby fans all, often travel with odd things - sharp tools, circuit boards, engines, etc. - and we have more trouble with things being destroyed in checked-luggage searches than the screening process. We are careful to label unusual items, but it doesn't always help all that much. When I go abroad, I also often end up in the "agricultural" customs line because I usually travel with food. Sometimes I will have to give things up - fruit, usually - but I know that in advance so I'm OK with it.

 

I've traveled since I was a child, so I just take it in stride, as do my kids, who've traveled quite a bit.

 

I know that because it's easy for me doesn't mean it's easy for everyone. I've encountered under-trained and/or unprofessional TSA agents here and there. But, for me, the best response (except in extreme cases) is knowing the regs, following them as well as possible, being polite to folks who are just doing their job, and complaining to the higher-ups if the need arises.

 

Travel, and visiting family, is just too important for my children to give up.

[NASDAQ]

I guess it just seems perfectly reasonable to me that children will occasionally be searched. Children can be used by unscrupulous people, sadly. My husband was searched as a child going to Israel. I have been searched before. It's not the worst experience in the world.

[hana]

I believe comparing commercial airflight to trains makes trains the *less safe, less cautious choice*. It is clearly safer if you are talking about the population in general: trains kill hundreds a year who are not on the train (crossings, etc). (The drama of a whole plane full of people dying overshadows the various killed here and there by derailments.)

 

The OP's husband isn't talking safety, but civil protest. Not sure how civil protest could be called safer, more conservative.

 

I can certainly see your point of view. I recognize that the OP situation isn't about safety. I do think the number of air passengers killed each year vs. the number of train passengers is higher (as you note about crossings, etc.). But anyways, I didn't mean to head down a rabbit hole. :)

[justasque]

...I just Googled. 1.73 million people fly in the US daily, which translates into well over 600 million people a year going through security. ... I found another site that puts the number of US flyers at 2 million per day, and another which states 800 million per year.

 

There is a whole interesting rabbit trail there. There's a difference between the number of *people* who fly in a year (many of whom may fly multiple times), the number of people-journeys in a year (so PHL to LAX is one person-journey, and if the person does it 8 times in the year that's 8 people-journeys (and another 8 person-journeys to return), though still one person who flew that year), and the number of person-take-offs in a year (so if you did PHL to LAX via MDW, that's 2 person-take-offs, one person-journey, and one person flying - do it 8 times, with return, and that's 32 person-take-offs, 16 person-journeys, and still only 1 person flying in the year).

 

When you read flight stats, or hear them on the news, take note if they're being careful about these distinctions. It's an interesting exercise in the appropriate use of statistics, and will probably lead you to be skeptical about numbers in the news in general.