[joonix]

I opt-out of the x-ray scanner every single time, and so should you. It really doesn't take much longer to go through the process. Show up 3 minutes earlier if you have to. You're rushing to the gate, for what? To sit there longer? Boarding with the crowds is stressful anyways. The most relaxed way to board is at the very end -- there's no more line, I just walk right into the plane, most people are seated, and just grab my seat. Why would you want to maximize the time spent sitting, especially on a cramped plane? I understand the situation is different if you really want your carry-on bag to stow above you.

If everyone opted out, the program would be scrapped. You can tell me about how the scanners give harmless amounts of radiation, but I don't really care. You have to stand for your principles. In this situation, a government contractor forced more security theater upon a country, with the only benefit of the entire charade going to their bottom line. Nobody is safer, an entire mode of transport has a new bottleneck, a government agency has expanded and is emboldened and now wants even broader jurisdiction, and as the article states, people are driving more and dying.

If we don't stand up and push back now, things will only get worse. More invasive, more annoying, more useless, more dangerous. And not an inch gained against the stated purpose of deterring terrorist attacks.

[Anechoic]

It really doesn't take much longer to go through the process. Show up 3 minutes earlier if you have to.

YMMV with respect to the additional time. I also opt out and have had to wait as long as 15 minutes for the pat down (and to make matters worse in that instance, there was an elderly passenger behind me who had a medical exemption from the scanner and they waved him through while I had to stand and wait).

My advice is that if you do plan to opt out, allow for more than 3 minutes.

[toomuchtodo]

Most opt outs cost you about 15 minutes extra; one time flying from MIA to ORD, I had to wait 40 minutes extra because I opted out.

[socialist_coder]

I also opt-out every time, but I would estimate the average additional time to be in the order of 10 minutes.

It's highly variable. Sometimes you get the pat-down right away and then it only takes about 3 minutes, but most of the time you have to wait for the agent to come get you, and that can take up to 10 minutes in my experience.

But in any case, it's worth it (for the reasons you mentioned). I wish there were more of us that always opted-out.

[WarDekar]

I used to opt out, but I also get fed up with being groped by old men. I'm not sure what the solution is because unless a significant portion of people opt out this doesn't accomplish anything and my groin has been fondled a few too many times at this point for me to want to continue opting out.

The entire procedure is completely bogus of course- everyt time I fly in the US now it's a question of: "How do I want to be violated today?"

[Osiris]

I opted out or chose a lane without a scanner for a long time until they implemented the new groin-feeling pat down. I opted out and got that enhanced pat down one day and I felt more uncomfortable with someone physically touching me than I did with the idea of someone seeing a picture of me. So now, I try to find a lane without a scanner, but I have gone through a scanner a few times just to avoid being felt-up. And yes, I'm entirely certain that one of the reasons for that pat down process was to push people toward not opting out.

[marssaxman]

I'm with you - I opt-out every time, and I will keep on doing so as long as I can. I have yet to have any trouble with my carry-on.

What's more, these days I always choose to fly in a kilt, commando style, to make the whole process as awkward as possible for the screeners.

[pavel_lishin]

> I understand the situation is different if you really want your carry-on bag to stow above you.

Or in the cabin. If you're the last to board, there's a very real possibility that they may have to gate-check your bag, which adds additional wait time at the end of your journey at best, and your bag arriving in Minnesota while you're touching down in Dallas at worst.

[epoxyhockey]

and your bag arriving in Minnesota while you're touching down in Dallas at worst

Is this even possible when gate checking? They literally walk your bag down the stairs at the end of the gate and place it into the plane cargo hold. EDIT: At the end of the flight, your bag is walked up the stairs back into the jetway.

I personally love the gate check loophole. If you intentionally wait to board last, you get a free bag check.

[gjm11]

I don't know whether exactly that is possible, but I have had the following happen: my bag got gate-checked on an intra-US connecting flight, and my carrier then wouldn't return it until I reached my final destination in London.

Which meant that I didn't have it with me when my flight to London was cancelled and I had to stay overnight in Chicago (too bad since it had my washkit and a change of clothes in it) and that when the replacement flight was also cancelled and I ended up going to London with a different carrier, my bag didn't get home until a couple of days after I did.

I will not be flying with United Airlines again in a hurry.

[ejdyksen]

Next time just tell them you have medicine in that bag that you need in the next 8 hours (which is why you tried to carry it on).

[pavel_lishin]

> Is this even possible when gate checking?

On a direct flight, your bag is safe. If you have connections, may god have mercy on your pants.

[pkteison]

I have had a gate-checked bag forgotten about and left in the boarding ramp. So yes, problems are still possible with gate check.

[citizens]

Which, of course, has become much more of a problem since the airlines started charging for checked bags/IRS made baggage fees tax-exempt.

"...amounts paid for baggage services (such as Service G) are not subject to the tax" [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1002004.pdf]

[sharkweek]

I don't have the link handy, but there was a great article arguing that the airlines could actually save more money not charging for checked bags because less people will try to cram their oversized luggage into the overheads, speeding up boarding times. Thus allowing for a lower rate of delayed takeoffs, which, over a long enough timeline, allows for more flights in a day they can charge for (and the added bonus of better customer retention).

[streptomycin]

If all the overhead compartments are full and they have to check your carry-on, they won't charge you any fee, at least on the major US airlines I've flown on.

[methodover]

I wonder if there's a better way to register one's complaint rather than merely opting out. (And I happen to agree with another poster who said that the 'enhanced pat down' can be more degrading than the scanner if you get someone who gets a little overzealous when they 'encounter resistance.')

What about a t-shirt, perhaps? Printed on the shirt would be a calm and clear explanation of the problems with the scanners/groping. Everyone standing in line around you would see it, the TSA officers would see it, and it could get some conversations started.

[flyinRyan]

If they're already hand-raping you because you don't want to go through the scanners (the only x-ray you can get in the US that's not run by a professional, btw), what makes you think they wouldn't let you go through the scanners and then grope you anyway if you wear such a shirt?

[switch007]

In the UK, you can't opt out. Also, you're subjected quite often to a full grope (if you set off the metal detector) before they select people to go through the X-ray scanners!