JetBlue defects to the dark side

[vdeane]

I'm not 100% sure but I believe that airlines pay third-party sites (like Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, etc.) to advertise and sell their tickets.  OTOH, Southwest (one of the first airlines to sell tickets directly on-line might I add) does not sell nor pay the fore-mentioned 3rd-party companies to advertise nor sell their tickets mainly for cost reasons.  Airlines are not mandated to advertise nor sell tickets via 3rd-party sites.

OK, I misunderstood.  I was picturing that they WERE listed, just with no price listed.

As for the body scanners, the new models don't generate naked pictures anymore. The scanner detects any anomalies automatically. All the TSA clerk sees is a green "OK" if nothing is detected or an indication of where to look if something was seen by the scanner. They're still ineffective security theater, but the privacy implications are largely resolved. Same for the medical concerns; the TSA got rid of the backscatter machines that blasted people with X-Rays and went solely to the millimeter wave machines that use very low power RF energy in a similar frequency band to that used by automatic doors and police radar guns.

So they say.  I'm not sure how much I trust an agency that said "the pictures won't be stored" only to have it proven that they were storing them.

[jakeroot]

So they say.  I'm not sure how much I trust an agency that said "the pictures won't be stored" only to have it proven that they were storing them.

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

[vdeane]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.
2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".
3. I was going to quip with your last question before deciding against it, but suffice it to say, those who know me well enough can probably figure out what I was going to say anyways.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.
2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".
3. I was going to quip with your last question before deciding against it, but suffice it to say, those who know me well enough can probably figure out what I was going to say anyways.

I thought it would be entertaining if you showed us your manhood.  We will be very, um, surprised. :-)

[realjd]

So they say.  I'm not sure how much I trust an agency that said "the pictures won't be stored" only to have it proven that they were storing them.

There has been zero evidence that the TSA ever stored any pictures. What the media grabbed onto was the fact that the machines were capable of storing images if put into a test/debug/training mode. That mode wasn't available operationally.

For the new ones that don't even generate images, you don't have to take the TSAs word for it. It's right on the manufacturer's slick sheet and is their main selling point: http://www.sds.l-3com.com/advancedimaging/provision-at.htm

Also keep in mind that there have been a number of ex-TSA whistleblowers over the past few years that have aired out a lot of the TSA's dirty laundry. If they were storing images, that would have come out by now like it did with the ones the US Marshall Service was using. IMO the TSA, and especially the front line airport staff, aren't competent enough to actually keep secrets like that.

[J N Winkler]

So they say.  I'm not sure how much I trust an agency that said "the pictures won't be stored" only to have it proven that they were storing them.

There has been zero evidence that the TSA ever stored any pictures. What the media grabbed onto was the fact that the machines were capable of storing images if put into a test/debug/training mode. That mode wasn't available operationally.

The underlying issue, as I see it, is that a promise not to store images cannot be credible.  Once the image has been taken, it can be stored, and indeed it has to be stored at least briefly in machine memory in order to be processed.  At best a declaration that images are not stored indefinitely can be taken as the beginning of a promise that, if it is later found that images are in fact stored, then people shown in those images will be held harmless.

As for invasion of privacy, being proud (or not) of one's own manhood, etc., there is no good answer.  Even if being transgender were not a consideration, there are men lucky enough to go through life with eight or more inches while others feel very self-conscious about having three or less.  And it frankly takes much courage to expect a government agency to be completely free of transphobia (overt or covert) when the wider society has hardly even begun to get over homophobia.  I guess I would just say that a person needs to be very careful in choosing which life limitations to accept, as failing to confront them altogether tends to limit one's experiences more than accepting the admittedly imperfect workarounds that are available.

[Brandon]

So they say.  I'm not sure how much I trust an agency that said "the pictures won't be stored" only to have it proven that they were storing them.

There has been zero evidence that the TSA ever stored any pictures. What the media grabbed onto was the fact that the machines were capable of storing images if put into a test/debug/training mode. That mode wasn't available operationally.

For the new ones that don't even generate images, you don't have to take the TSAs word for it. It's right on the manufacturer's slick sheet and is their main selling point: http://www.sds.l-3com.com/advancedimaging/provision-at.htm

Also keep in mind that there have been a number of ex-TSA whistleblowers over the past few years that have aired out a lot of the TSA's dirty laundry. If they were storing images, that would have come out by now like it did with the ones the US Marshall Service was using. IMO the TSA, and especially the front line airport staff, aren't competent enough to actually keep secrets like that.

TSA and competency is like jumbo shrimp.  The two words just do not belong together.  There's a reason I call them "The Stupid Agency".

[corco]

So they say.  I'm not sure how much I trust an agency that said "the pictures won't be stored" only to have it proven that they were storing them.

There has been zero evidence that the TSA ever stored any pictures. What the media grabbed onto was the fact that the machines were capable of storing images if put into a test/debug/training mode. That mode wasn't available operationally.

For the new ones that don't even generate images, you don't have to take the TSAs word for it. It's right on the manufacturer's slick sheet and is their main selling point: http://www.sds.l-3com.com/advancedimaging/provision-at.htm

Also keep in mind that there have been a number of ex-TSA whistleblowers over the past few years that have aired out a lot of the TSA's dirty laundry. If they were storing images, that would have come out by now like it did with the ones the US Marshall Service was using. IMO the TSA, and especially the front line airport staff, aren't competent enough to actually keep secrets like that.

Right, people who believe government is competent enough to pull off large scale conspiracies, especially when people as low ranking as TSA officials are involved, are really giving government too much credit.

[Pete from Boston]

Remember, it wasn't until they used it to catch the woman who sent ricin to the president that the postal service confessed it had been retaining a photo of every piece of mail sent in the US for ten years or so.

[vdeane]

And it frankly takes much courage to expect a government agency to be completely free of transphobia (overt or covert) when the wider society has hardly even begun to get over homophobia.

Not even that, but also general awkwardness.

Right, people who believe government is competent enough to pull off large scale conspiracies, especially when people as low ranking as TSA officials are involved, are really giving government too much credit.

Agency culture, deference to authorities, etc. can be powerful.    If someone at the top says "don't tell anyone", most people would obey.  And with software, you won't need many people "in the know" - just the programmer and the IT people.  I do recall some stories of celebrity pictures from these things, and there was one story contradicting the TSA's narrative a few months ago.

Remember, it wasn't until they used it to catch the woman who sent ricin to the president that the postal service confessed it had been retaining a photo of every piece of mail sent in the US for ten years or so.

Hmm... that sure sounds familiar!

[briantroutman]

Getting back to the issue of the cost of air travel–how pleasant or unpleasant it is, whether meals or baggage is included, and so on–keep in mind how dirt cheap flying is today. Or the converse, how expensive and exclusive it used to be.

I'll never forget an episode of Get Smart where Max and 99 follow a KAOS agent to Dulles, and when the KAOS agent boards a flight to San Francisco, Max walks up to the counter agent and buys two tickets to San Francisco–coach. That's a trip I've made countless times. The cost? $609.42...in 1966. I would bristle at paying that much today.

Depending on how you want to calculate inflation, that fare equates to almost $4,500 today. If you really want to spend that much, you can buy first class tickets that get you lounge access, a large comfortable seat, free priority baggage handling, a four-course meal served on china, free liquor, and most everything you would have expected in the Don Draper era. And you'd still have money left over.

[jakeroot]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.
2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".
3. I was going to quip with your last question before deciding against it, but suffice it to say, those who know me well enough can probably figure out what I was going to say anyways.

First of all, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm sorry if I did. But suffice to say, I'm part of the minority that don't know you. Frankly, I have no idea if you're a man or a woman. Hell, I'm so illiterate that I can't pick apart number 3 so as to determine your actual gender (at this point, minus the people that I know for a fact aren't men or women, names, such as vdeane, are gender-neutral -- thus you are neither a man or a woman, but rather a computer or a robot or something). Also, so I can clear this up, "manhood" is synonymous with "adulthood" (just in case that caught your eye).

[kkt]

Getting back to the issue of the cost of air travel–how pleasant or unpleasant it is, whether meals or baggage is included, and so on–keep in mind how dirt cheap flying is today. Or the converse, how expensive and exclusive it used to be.

I'll never forget an episode of Get Smart where Max and 99 follow a KAOS agent to Dulles, and when the KAOS agent boards a flight to San Francisco, Max walks up to the counter agent and buys two tickets to San Francisco–coach. That's a trip I've made countless times. The cost? $609.42...in 1966. I would bristle at paying that much today.

Depending on how you want to calculate inflation, that fare equates to almost $4,500 today. If you really want to spend that much, you can buy first class tickets that get you lounge access, a large comfortable seat, free priority baggage handling, a four-course meal served on china, free liquor, and most everything you would have expected in the Don Draper era. And you'd still have money left over.

Air fares have dropped, but I don't think they were really that high.  Maybe it was the special Secret Agent Last Minute Walkup Expense Account fare?  If you know of sources for 50 year old airfares actually charged, I'd be interested.

[briantroutman]

Air fares have dropped, but I don't think they were really that high.  Maybe it was the special Secret Agent Last Minute Walkup Expense Account fare?  If you know of sources for 50 year old airfares actually charged, I'd be interested.

Max's fare might have been a bit higher than reality for 1966, but not too much. I found this 1966 United timetable that lists the one-way fare coach fare from Washington to San Francisco as $137.25 plus tax–which, multiplied by two passengers and two ways, would come to $549. I don't know what kind of taxes were levied on air tickets in those days, but if it was around 10% total, that would bring the cost very close to what Max would have put on his CONTROL expense account form.

(Looking at my previous post, I realize it might have looked like I meant that the tickets were one-way instead of round-trip, which would have been much more outrageous.)

[PHLBOS]

Air fares have dropped, but I don't think they were really that high.  Maybe it was the special Secret Agent Last Minute Walkup Expense Account fare?  If you know of sources for 50 year old airfares actually charged, I'd be interested.

Max's fare might have been a bit higher than reality for 1966, but not too much. I found this 1966 United timetable that lists the one-way fare coach fare from Washington to San Francisco as $137.25 plus tax–which, multiplied by two passengers and two ways, would come to $549. I don't know what kind of taxes were levied on air tickets in those days, but if it was around 10% total, that would bring the cost very close to what Max would have put on his CONTROL expense account form.

(Looking at my previous post, I realize it might have looked like I meant that the tickets were one-way instead of round-trip, which would have been much more outrageous.)

Keep in mind that the airline industry back then was regulated & airlines couldn't just add new domestic routes on a whim; such had to be approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB).  Additionally, air traffic was likely smaller then than what it is today.

The original argument for airline deregulation, that became law in 1978, was for increased airline competition and lower fares as a result of such.  That's one reason why comparing the relative cost of airfares today vs. the pre-deregulation era is a bit like comparing apples & oranges at times.

[kkt]

It would be interesting to have more historical data.  Jets were introduced at the end of the 1950s, but in the low-competition environment perhaps the cost savings hadn't trickled down to the fares by 1966.

[briantroutman]

It would be interesting to have more historical data.  Jets were introduced at the end of the 1950s, but in the low-competition environment perhaps the cost savings hadn't trickled down to the fares by 1966.

I got the United timetable from this website, which covers a number of airlines from around the world, although year-by-year coverage is spotty, and the site is pretty clumsy to navigate. Some timetables list prices–others don't.

An earlier (1961) timetable shows prop plane service from DC to SF at a lower $108.10 (still about $850 in today's dollars), although a later (1969) timetable shows the jet service price unchanged from '66.

Just a quick glance at a few of the timetables reveals some interesting items...

• With limited exceptions, your spouse could travel at a 75% fare and children at half or one-third price depending on age
• "United's Men-Only "˜Executive' flights...have an extra fare of $3.00 plus tax for special services"   (I was astounded by the sexism)
• Helicopter connecting service between SFO and OAK, EWR and LGA, etc. and from LAX to Disneyland
  

[kkt]

I have the ticket from my first flight, about 1973 from Oakland to LAX on PSA.  It was $12.50, half fare for a child.  That would be $66 today.  Even the adult fare at $132 would be a cheap compared to today's prices.

[Mdcastle]

I don't see Southwest's "bags fly free" going anywhere anytime soon. They don't allow their fares to be on 3rd party booking sites so they don't have to worry about people clicking the lowest price on a list, and it's a great marketing point for people pissed off at paying bag fees on other airlines.

Southwest doesn't allow their prices to be listed in third party websites largely so people wont realize that they aren't cheaper than other airlines anymore and haven't been for a number of years.

That's not true in my experience. Delta has a near monopoly out of MSP and absolutely gouges on prices. I've checked fares on Kayak including 2 checked bags vs Southwest and there's no way I could afford to fly any other airline. I realize that Alaska is a no starter, but I really hope SW starts flying to Hawaii so we can afford to go there some day.

[realjd]

I don't see Southwest's "bags fly free" going anywhere anytime soon. They don't allow their fares to be on 3rd party booking sites so they don't have to worry about people clicking the lowest price on a list, and it's a great marketing point for people pissed off at paying bag fees on other airlines.

Southwest doesn't allow their prices to be listed in third party websites largely so people wont realize that they aren't cheaper than other airlines anymore and haven't been for a number of years.

That's not true in my experience. Delta has a near monopoly out of MSP and absolutely gouges on prices. I've checked fares on Kayak including 2 checked bags vs Southwest and there's no way I could afford to fly any other airline. I realize that Alaska is a no starter, but I really hope SW starts flying to Hawaii so we can afford to go there some day.

Southwest now owns some ETOPS certified 737-800s that can make the flight to Hawaii and there have been rumors for the past year about it.

Southwest can be cheaper if you can catch a sale but their fuel price advantage has been over for several years so they're typically priced about the same or more expensive than other airlines in my experience. Maybe the MSP market is an exception to that.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.

Agreed. 

Beyond that, speaking as someone who is male and has always been male, I do not like the idea of a TSA person "checking" me out there.

2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".

Unless they have a very good reason for such invasion of privacy, which is what it is (and the TSA usually does not), then it should not be allowed.  Period.

[Pete from Boston]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.

Agreed. 

Beyond that, speaking as someone who is male and has always been male, I do not like the idea of a TSA person "checking" me out there.

2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".

Unless they have a very good reason for such invasion of privacy, which is what it is (and the TSA usually does not), then it should not be allowed.  Period.

How do you identify who is a threat enough to have a good reason to invade this privacy?  In the meantime, what's too invasive to justify trying to save the lives of a hundred or more people?

[jeffandnicole]

It's a tough line.  If it hasn't happened yet, the invasion is too much.  If it has happened, then why didn't they do more to stop it?

Same thing with roads: If there's no potholes, why are they repaving the road?  If there are potholes, why didn't they fix the road before the potholes formed?

[vdeane]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.

Agreed. 

Beyond that, speaking as someone who is male and has always been male, I do not like the idea of a TSA person "checking" me out there.

2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".

Unless they have a very good reason for such invasion of privacy, which is what it is (and the TSA usually does not), then it should not be allowed.  Period.

How do you identify who is a threat enough to have a good reason to invade this privacy?  In the meantime, what's too invasive to justify trying to save the lives of a hundred or more people?

Keeping our civil liberties involves accepting risk.  I can think of quite a few things they could do, but they all involve turning our political system on its head.

[jakeroot]

My earlier opinions aside, I'd rather have the TSA stare at my naked body than fall out of the sky. Whether or not the TSA is taking the right approach to prevent the latter is up in the air (no pun intended), but I fly six or seven times a year, without issue thus far. So, you'll never see me complain.

I spoke to my mom about her opinion on the body scanners (I felt like her opinion stretched a little further than most given her present involvement with aviation security), and she was not too keen on having the TSA store images of our bodies. Her reasoning was that, should the servers ever get hacked and the images released, in theory, and only if TSA actually stores the images, the general public would have access to naked scans of every person who passed through a body scanner, ever. I'm not really paranoid about airport security, but the possibility of that happening does concern me a little.