Pretty much every heavy traveler I know strives for carryon only. It isn’t always possible and sometimes you check a bag, but if you can do it, the benefits are real.

It’s mostly just that you want to travel light. It gives you more freedom of movement and flexibility to have just one suitcase or backpack. But that means everything from your computer to your prescription drugs to your socks and underwear is in there, so checking it isn’t an option if you travel light.

The problem is potentially adding an hour or more to travel, along with the risk of the airline losing your bag. It's extremely inconvenient and often unpredictable.

Along with added cost. Not everyone has frequent flier credit cards.

No, I was explicitly saying that the most frequent travelers likely do (either that, or are likely business travelers where those costs are borne out by the employers).

Would that not be true?

I'm a very frequent traveler and have free checked bags. I rarely check, it's a huge hassle.

> So it seems like some non-trivial subset of travelers want to insist on not checking bags AND complaining about the rules. This feels a but unreasonable to me.

It's entirely reasonable to complain about rules you believe are unreasonable.

> Frequent travelers would often have credit cards that reimburse you for baggage fees. So what’s the problem? You have a choice.

The problem is I travel light, and my luggage fits easily in the overhead bin and/or under my seat. Why should I have to ensure I get to the airport early so I can make the baggage check cutoff? Why should I have to wait for an extra 20-30 minutes (or more, at the worst airports) after my flight to get that luggage? Why should I have to risk my luggage being damaged, delayed, or lost entirely?

I just had to check some luggage on a recent trip back to the US from Europe, because I'd bought a couple bottles of wine. That was the first time I'd checked luggage since 2007 (yes, 17 years ago). It was annoying and a waste of my time.

But it's not just the ban on liquids in carry-on luggage. It's that I have to finish or dump my water bottle before security, and hope there's a reasonable way to refill it airside with clean, not-foul-tasting water before I get on my flight. Some airports have dedicated bottle filling stations, but most do not. The water provided on the plane (without me constantly annoying the flight attendants for more, outside their beverage service times) is a small amount compared to what I'd drink at home in the same time period, and I drink more on planes since it's easier to get dehydrated in that environment.

This is security theater. We should always push back.

It's funny (sad funny, not ha-ha funny) that at this point it's mostly just accepted as the way things are done. After 9/11, everyone was so scared; we allowed the government to make travel (among other things in life) much worse for dubious (and often negative) benefit (and the US, being the US, infected everyone else with this nonsense). But now that we're 23 years out from it, many of the people who fly today don't remember -- or don't even know -- anything different.

IMO by far the biggest gain in airplane security we got after 9/11 was armored, locked cockpit doors, with would-be hijackers learning that now they aren't going to get access to the cockpit or pilots. Only allowing ticketed passengers through security is another good one (buying a ticket in order to get through isn't hard or expensive, but leaves a paper trail that can only be defeated with much more effort and cost). Nearly everything else seems to have made little to no impact.

I do largely agree with you about some things being security theater. (And cockpit doors, etc as folks like Bruce Schneier have written about).

My point was that in some examples in the article, the couple that is traveling for weeks, can easily check in their bag so they can have their souvenirs. That’s a choice available to them. Instead the scenario makes it feel like they have to not take those souvenirs home because of this evil policy.

And they have addressed that the newer CT machines will take care of the fluids rule.

So it’s not like airport security isn’t getting smarter (also with programs like pre check). They are trying to find pragmatic ways to scan for things without inconveniencing travelers.

In your example, is it really that bad that you had to check in your bags ONCE in 17 years? This is exactly what I’m talking about.

I’m totally with you about security theater. This is my first time in 20+ years in an internet thread defending a TSA policy as not that bad. But some of the examples seemed frivolous to me.