If your job requires a lot of travel, then short of a radical career change (itself, a pretty unreasonable demand)airplanes are your only viable choice.
But are you "forced" at gunpoint? Obviously not, but this is a ridiculously high standard to use when establishing whether someone is being compelled to do something.
If your boss says "you need to be in Dallas on Monday morning", you need to be in Dallas on Monday morning.
This is not a good argument. You have no legal right to drive an automobile or to fly a plane, both are heavily regulated. The "if you have a job that requires X" argument is fundamentally weak, there is no intrinsically superior right to any activity due to it being job related or not (this is a good thing, I believe).
The problem of course is the extent of intrusion on daily lives.
The better legal approach is the 10th amendment route, or coming up with new legislation.
But are you "forced" at gunpoint? Obviously not, but this is a ridiculously high standard to use when establishing whether someone is being compelled to do something.
If your boss says "you need to be in Dallas on Monday morning", you need to be in Dallas on Monday morning.