__________ is/are overrated.

[formulanone]

Not to mention that they apparently have to see you naked in order to fly nowadays. (Few old school metal detectors, only the new nude-o-scopes.)

Oh, if air travel were done in the nude, that might sway me to liking it more.  But only if they're liberal in handing out blankets, because I get cold very easily.

Bad enough hearing everyone's views on politics, religion, and work babble. But I suppose nobody would earnestly talk about the last one on a plane of nekkid pax.

[gonealookin]

The first time I went to Las Vegas, I stayed at the Rio, and as far as I'm aware we weren't charged for parking (though it's entirely possible that we were and the person driving just never mentioned it). Granted, the Rio has a reputation for being a dive compared to the rest of Las Vegas, but the casino in Oklahoma I have the most experience with is literally made of temporary trailer buildings, so it seemed nice enough to me. (And the Excalibur, the only other casino in Nevada I've been in and which does charge for parking, wasn't that much nicer. Actually, I liked the room better at the Rio.)

I imagine you could save a few bucks by staying at the Rio and then just taking Uber or whatever over to the actual Strip, since it's not that far of a drive. (I wouldn't try to walk it, though, since that bridge over I-15 seems like it would be dicey.)

The Strip resorts, and some/most of them downtown, are the only places that charge for parking.

My last trip a couple weeks ago, I stayed at the Suncoast out in Summerlin, for convenience, as I was there for four days of PGA Tour.  Parking is free out there, and they have so much more of it than they need for whatever reason that the Suncoast's parking lots are the free parking for the golf tournament a couple miles away; the shuttle bus to the course leaves from the front door of the hotel.

Personally, going to Vegas once or twice a year for some reason or other as it's about 7 hours drive away, (speaking of overrated) I've been to the Strip, seen it, checked it off the list and avoid it with passion.  For visitors for whom Vegas is a big and rare vacation, the Strip obviously is a must-stay-there place and you pay whatever it costs. 

[kphoger]

The debate about whether "if you have $382 then you also have $78" is true is funny to me because, that's not even the question. The flight itself, and therefore the expense of the flight, is more important than the amount of time it takes to get on and off that flight. Just because you can afford to pay the extra $78 doesn't mean you should. Paying the $78 to save a bit of time on one round trip flight for the whole duration of the 5 years is just lighting money on fire unless you're wealthy to the point where you might as well pay for business class too.

Except that this whole discussion started when he said...

TSA pre-check is a must-have.

[Rothman]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

Wut.  We're roadgeeks.  We go everywhere, rural, suburban and urban.

I prefer driving into Manhattan over taking transit on the weekends.  The difference in cost between taking a train in and parking isn't too bad and then you're free to leave whenever you like instead of having to worry about a train schedule.

Entrance fees to major national parks are now equivalent to a day's worth of parking in Manhattan as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

Wut.  We're roadgeeks.  We go everywhere, rural, suburban and urban.

I prefer driving into Manhattan over taking transit on the weekends.  The difference in cost between taking a train in and parking isn't too bad and then you're free to leave whenever you like instead of having to worry about a train schedule.

Entrance fees to major national parks are now equivalent to a day's worth of parking in Manhattan as well.

If you do more than five NPS site visits a year that entrance fee investment can be significantly lessened by getting an annual pass. 

[jeffandnicole]

The first time I went to Las Vegas, I stayed at the Rio, and as far as I'm aware we weren't charged for parking (though it's entirely possible that we were and the person driving just never mentioned it). Granted, the Rio has a reputation for being a dive compared to the rest of Las Vegas, but the casino in Oklahoma I have the most experience with is literally made of temporary trailer buildings, so it seemed nice enough to me. (And the Excalibur, the only other casino in Nevada I've been in and which does charge for parking, wasn't that much nicer. Actually, I liked the room better at the Rio.)

I imagine you could save a few bucks by staying at the Rio and then just taking Uber or whatever over to the actual Strip, since it's not that far of a drive. (I wouldn't try to walk it, though, since that bridge over I-15 seems like it would be dicey.)

It depends when you went to Vegas.  For the most part, paying to park is a relatively new charge to the visitors which only began in 2016.  If you visited the Rio before that, parking wasn't charged.  If you were at the Excalibur in 2016 or later, then parking fees had become a thing by then.  Most of my visits were pre-2016.  My sole visit after 2016 only involved Ubering so I didn't pay for parking.

I've been in Vegas numerous times, but Rio is one place I've never stayed.  This is going back 10+ years, but I've always heard at that time the rooms were large but a little dated.

I have walked from the Strip to the Rio and back.  It's about a mile walk along a heavily used roadway, over I-15.  It's no different than a walk I've done in other cities.  A lot of people have said they don't want to walk it, but it really is a simple walk. 

If you have $100 to gamble, you probably have the wherewithal for paying for Pre-Check.

Or, I spend an extra 20 minutes in the security line, and I have $100 more to gamble with.

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

I mean, you mentioned Vegas upthread. Good luck getting anywhere near the Strip for free, and if you do, it's probably a spot your car could get stolen.

One would hope parking would be included in the "Resort Fee" in Vegas, but, nope.

Pulling one at random, the Mandalay Bay, the Resort Fee is $44.22/night and there's an additional $18 daily charge for self parking.

Well, resort fees have been around since 2009 or so (a little later at Caesar's branded casinos).  Parking Fees have been around since 2016.  The purchase of the fee is to extract more money from the visitor, so blending it into the Resort Fee wouldn't have made any sense.

[Rothman]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

Wut.  We're roadgeeks.  We go everywhere, rural, suburban and urban.

I prefer driving into Manhattan over taking transit on the weekends.  The difference in cost between taking a train in and parking isn't too bad and then you're free to leave whenever you like instead of having to worry about a train schedule.

Entrance fees to major national parks are now equivalent to a day's worth of parking in Manhattan as well.

If you do more than five NPS site visits a year that entrance fee investment can be significantly lessened by getting an annual pass.

Depends on the sites.  Most NPS sites are actually free.

[vdeane]

Plus, as I understand it, even with PreCheck there's still a random chance you could be forced to use the regular line.

There are two ways that could happen that I know of:

1) Occasionally, your Known Traveler Number (KTN) will not appear on your boarding pass. This can usually be resolved by printing a new boarding pass, updating it online if you're using a mobile boarding pass, or worst-case, speaking to a travel agent.

2) The TSA lines aren't always 24-hour and may not be open at particularly light-traffic times. But even if it's closed, it usually means there's no line at regular security, and you're usually given a card to use the benefits of Pre-Check in the regular line.

My complaints with NEXUS are similar: it's basically a financial cost and hassle for something that everyone used to get before 9/11.  IMO we should go back to the way things were before 9/11 (mostly) and get rid of the security theater.  Keep the few things that actually help (like securing the cockpit), get rid of the rest.

The value of NEXUS is mostly for land crossings, since the designated lanes can save hours at peak times, and it generally reduces the questioning even if using a regular lane.

I know what it's used for.  I just don't see why it should be necessary to fork over money and go through the hassle to get that.  I'm old enough to remember crossing the border with no more hassle than paying a toll at a Thruway toll barrier (I don't think I even truly began to comprehend what it meant for Canada to be a foreign country until after 9/11, in fact) and Mom and I could wait for Dad at the airport gate with just a simple trip through a metal detector that took all of 30 seconds at the most (I actually have a LOT of experience with the Rochester airport as a result, but all of it is pre-9/11 and none that I remember involves a plane (I was a toddler the last time I actually flew somewhere), so it's all useless) when he returned home from business trips.  That was the normal experience.  Everyone had it.  No "trusted traveler" program needed.  I'm guessing from your age that you probably see the post-9/11 security theater world as "normal" and "the way things are", since you're too young to have remembered how it used to be.

All this talk about the inconvenience of flying, and no one has touched on the real inconvenience -- limits on how much you can take with you.

If  you're traveling by car, you can pack as much as the car will hold and you're good. Extra shoes? A cooler full of pop so you don't have to buy it from overpriced hotel vending machines? Snacks for the week? A couple of extra pairs of shoes? Your laptop and camera? Sure!

Car travel isn't as fast, especially if you want to go a long distance, but it's certainly more convenient and you're more in control of your itinerary.

Exactly.  This is especially true since my luggage isn't airplane-optimized, but even if it were, the liquids ban means that I can't simply take my usual shampoo, conditioner, contact lens solution, toothpaste, or moisturizer.

having to rearrange things so your car is less likely to be a target for random theft.

This is why I would never want to own a SUV, CUV, or pickup truck.  Nobody can see what's in your trunk unless it is open.

I prefer to be treated like a respectable member of society, not as a strange cross between convict and cattle.

Exactly.  In fact, that is practically a deal-breaker for me in and of itself.

The Strip resorts, and some/most of them downtown, are the only places that charge for parking.

Anyone else momentarily think of some other definition of "strip" after all the discussion of nude flying?

[Max Rockatansky]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

Wut.  We're roadgeeks.  We go everywhere, rural, suburban and urban.

I prefer driving into Manhattan over taking transit on the weekends.  The difference in cost between taking a train in and parking isn't too bad and then you're free to leave whenever you like instead of having to worry about a train schedule.

Entrance fees to major national parks are now equivalent to a day's worth of parking in Manhattan as well.

If you do more than five NPS site visits a year that entrance fee investment can be significantly lessened by getting an annual pass.

Depends on the sites.  Most NPS sites are actually free.

Around here being surrounded by Pinnacles, Sequoia, Kings Canyon and Yosemite it works out for day trips.  Pinnacles is the cheapest out of the lot with a $30 entry fee for private vehicles.

[kkt]

Speaking of the uselessness of airport security, Washington State Senator Jeff Wilson was found to have a pistol in his briefcase in the Hong Kong airport.  He and his family were going to SE Asia for a vacation and he says he simply forgot the pistol was there.  His flights originated in Portland, Oregon, and it is unclear why they did not detact the pistol.  Wilson's travel plans will be greatly interupted, they granted him bail but he is not allowed to leave the city and they kept his passport.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/us-state-senator-arrested-hong-kong-pistol

[jeffandnicole]

Speaking of the uselessness of airport security, Washington State Senator Jeff Wilson was found to have a pistol in his briefcase in the Hong Kong airport.  He and his family were going to SE Asia for a vacation and he says he simply forgot the pistol was there.  His flights originated in Portland, Oregon, and it is unclear why they did not detact the pistol.  Wilson's travel plans will be greatly interupted, they granted him bail but he is not allowed to leave the city and they kept his passport.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/us-state-senator-arrested-hong-kong-pistol

Per the article:

"We are learning about the incident with [Wilson] at the same time as the press and public here in America. As I understand it, this was an honest mistake," Washington state's senate Republican leader, John Braun, said in a statement, according to the Journal.

If this happened to a normal person:

"We'll hold hearings to find out who is responsible.  And we hope this person never carries a gun again.  This is not a mistake and it should have never happened"

[tmoore952]

My two cents:

I also am old enough to have gone into airports pre-9/11 (actually at this point, it's still been more years pre-9/11 than years since) and remember just having to step through a metal detector to see people off, or welcome people back. That being said, I don't want those days back. I don't want to get into the reasons because it will get political real fast. You can read between the lines.

I went to my niece's wedding in September in Illinois (on a non-holiday weekend). About a 700 mile drive one way, which I have done in the past. With both me and my wife working, and my son in school, the only way we could pull that off in September was by flying. It has its benefits.

[Rothman]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

Wut.  We're roadgeeks.  We go everywhere, rural, suburban and urban.

I prefer driving into Manhattan over taking transit on the weekends.  The difference in cost between taking a train in and parking isn't too bad and then you're free to leave whenever you like instead of having to worry about a train schedule.

Entrance fees to major national parks are now equivalent to a day's worth of parking in Manhattan as well.

If you do more than five NPS site visits a year that entrance fee investment can be significantly lessened by getting an annual pass.

Depends on the sites.  Most NPS sites are actually free.

Around here being surrounded by Pinnacles, Sequoia, Kings Canyon and Yosemite it works out for day trips.  Pinnacles is the cheapest out of the lot with a $30 entry fee for private vehicles.

Well, sure.  Like I said, depends on the sites.  I'm a member of a club of national park visitors and our forum has a number of stories of people getting an annual pass, going on some big trip to hit a bunch of "lesser" NPS sites, and then getting annoyed with how many free sites there are (and how the passes do not cover anything but the entrance fee, which is a separate "issue"...).

[Rothman]

Speaking of the uselessness of airport security, Washington State Senator Jeff Wilson was found to have a pistol in his briefcase in the Hong Kong airport.  He and his family were going to SE Asia for a vacation and he says he simply forgot the pistol was there.  His flights originated in Portland, Oregon, and it is unclear why they did not detact the pistol.  Wilson's travel plans will be greatly interupted, they granted him bail but he is not allowed to leave the city and they kept his passport.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/us-state-senator-arrested-hong-kong-pistol

Per the article:

"We are learning about the incident with [Wilson] at the same time as the press and public here in America. As I understand it, this was an honest mistake," Washington state's senate Republican leader, John Braun, said in a statement, according to the Journal.

If this happened to a normal person:

"We'll hold hearings to find out who is responsible.  And we hope this person never carries a gun again.  This is not a mistake and it should have never happened"

It does being the definition of "responsible gun owner" into question.  Should irresponsible gun owners be allowed to own guns?

[Rothman]

My two cents:

I also am old enough to have gone into airports pre-9/11 (actually at this point, it's still been more years pre-9/11 than years since) and remember just having to step through a metal detector to see people off, or welcome people back. That being said, I don't want those days back. I don't want to get into the reasons because it will get political real fast. You can read between the lines.

No, we can't.  Kind of hard to think of airport security as partisan in some way? 

[formulanone]

Speaking of the uselessness of airport security, Washington State Senator Jeff Wilson was found to have a pistol in his briefcase in the Hong Kong airport.  He and his family were going to SE Asia for a vacation and he says he simply forgot the pistol was there.  His flights originated in Portland, Oregon, and it is unclear why they did not detact the pistol.  Wilson's travel plans will be greatly interupted, they granted him bail but he is not allowed to leave the city and they kept his passport.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/us-state-senator-arrested-hong-kong-pistol

Per the article:

"We are learning about the incident with [Wilson] at the same time as the press and public here in America. As I understand it, this was an honest mistake," Washington state's senate Republican leader, John Braun, said in a statement, according to the Journal.

If this happened to a normal person:

"We'll hold hearings to find out who is responsible.  And we hope this person never carries a gun again.  This is not a mistake and it should have never happened"

Oh, so it's everyone else's fault but the gun owner? Responsibility and social contract is why we (some of us begrudgingly) allow gun ownership in the first place.

Besides, if he flew in a private jet, as politicians or wealthy prefer due to anonymity, there is no security, only customs points.

[1995hoo]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

I just spent most of the week in New York. While I took Amtrak (and paid to park, for which I'll be reimbursed), and while I could have gotten free parking in New York, that's only because of the particular building to which I was going. Good luck to anyone else trying to find free parking, or even cheap parking, in Lower Manhattan.

BTW, my next trip is to Seattle. As much as I'd love to drive out there and drive back, there is zero chance of that happening because of the time involved. I don't care that I'd never be reimbursed for the mileage (which would add up to far more than the roundtrip airfare), but it would simply take me away from being able to get work done at a time when it needs to get done for things relating to that very trip.

[tmoore952]

My two cents:

I also am old enough to have gone into airports pre-9/11 (actually at this point, it's still been more years pre-9/11 than years since) and remember just having to step through a metal detector to see people off, or welcome people back. That being said, I don't want those days back. I don't want to get into the reasons because it will get political real fast. You can read between the lines.

No, we can't.  Kind of hard to think of airport security as partisan in some way?

Remember that I am talking about going back to the days when it was ONLY metal detectors. Has to do with people being in the boarding area who don't have/share the same common interest of the travelers for getting to their destination safely (and who also have not spent the $$$ for the ticket), and who might bring in non-metal things for disruption. Could be anything from jilted spouses to paranoid people (like what happened in Maine this week). Things that 3-D printers can make. The conversation could get into who can carry what.

I only expanded on this because you asked me to. This is a dumb discussion, if you ask me. It doesn't matter whether people think post-9/11 security is overkill (and we should go back to the old days), because it is now the "normal" (to quote an earlier poster), and it isn't going back.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't mind most security at the airport. Removing shoes has got to go, and frankly leaving a belt on should be ok also. 

Back in 1996, I was a volunteer for the All-Star game in Philly, and my station was at the airport.  I walked back and forth thru security numerous times during my shifts.  I even asked if I had to go thru security, and they almost were apologetic that yeah, I had to - even pilots had to go thru.  At the end of the All-Star week, I and other volunteers went into an area they were doing construction and asked for a screwdriver to take down some All-Star game signs as souvenirs.  They had no issues.

I don't know if it was at airports or other places involving heavy security, but I remember a time or two going thru security lines and if we had a cell phone it had to be turned on so they could see it working (this may have even been pre-9/11; it's been so long).

My only beef with airport security is that they need to be more consistent.  Last time my wife and I flew, we were in the same line.  There were two security booths.  The first one had someone yelling loudly "I JUST NEED YOUR BOARDING PASS. DO NOT GIVE ME YOUR ID".  When someone approached his line with their ID out, they loudly said "I SAID I DON'T NEED YOUR ID".  The other security person was checking boarding passes, but also wanted your ID.  But this person was much quieter.  So everyone who put their ID away and got this person got an irritated response from that security person they had to pull out their ID again. 

[vdeane]

My two cents:

I also am old enough to have gone into airports pre-9/11 (actually at this point, it's still been more years pre-9/11 than years since) and remember just having to step through a metal detector to see people off, or welcome people back. That being said, I don't want those days back. I don't want to get into the reasons because it will get political real fast. You can read between the lines.

No, we can't.  Kind of hard to think of airport security as partisan in some way?

Remember that I am talking about going back to the days when it was ONLY metal detectors. Has to do with people being in the boarding area who don't have/share the same common interest of the travelers for getting to their destination safely (and who also have not spent the $$$ for the ticket), and who might bring in non-metal things for disruption. Could be anything from jilted spouses to paranoid people (like what happened in Maine this week). Things that 3-D printers can make. The conversation could get into who can carry what.

I only expanded on this because you asked me to. This is a dumb discussion, if you ask me. It doesn't matter whether people think post-9/11 security is overkill (and we should go back to the old days), because it is now the "normal" (to quote an earlier poster), and it isn't going back.

I did say "keep the few things that actually help, dump the rest".  And we could stand to learn from other countries, which have much less invasive security (they don't ban liquids or "pat down" people so aggressively, for instance; in short, they don't treat flyers like criminals).

We lost a lot of functionality when implementing the current system, too.  What used to be people waiting at the gate for their loved ones is now people circling the airport in cars, unsure if they'll be waiting another 15 minutes or 15 seconds.  Cell phone lots, for instance, are something that would not be needed if it weren't for our current system.  And everyone around where I live who spent years complaining that the only local Chic-fil-A was in the airport wouldn't have needed to complain if security were at the gate rather than centralized and blocking off the food court (something that was only needed due to security now being such a hassle to get through).  But there will always be another "thing" that can be used by a bad guy; ultimately, trying to ban or screen all the "things" is doomed to fail.

The TSA doesn't exactly have a very good track record of stopping things like guns, anyways.

[kkt]

It's not clear to me why cell phone lots are due to airport security.  Arriving passengers don't go through a security check.  The cell phone lot is because how long it'll take the plane to get the gate and the passengers off varies widely.  We can still park in the short term parking lot and meet our arriving family and friends at the baggage claim.

[webny99]

It's not clear to me why cell phone lots are due to airport security.  Arriving passengers don't go through a security check.  The cell phone lot is because how long it'll take the plane to get the gate and the passengers off varies widely.  We can still park in the short term parking lot and meet our arriving family and friends at the baggage claim.

Also worth noting that the increased airport security post-9/11 came at around the same time as cell phones were becoming an everyday personal item.

[webny99]

Who goes to places that charge for parking? (And if you're on a road trip...it's probably more interesting to not take the toll roads.)

"Places" as in cities, or specific destinations? It's almost impossible to visit a major city without paying for parking somewhere along the way.

I guess I only visit minor cities, then. It's not hard to find free parking in downtown OKC, although I have an unfair home-field advantage there. But even so, I've never had to pay for parking in Tulsa, Kansas City, or Dallas. Maybe I'm just lucky in that I don't normally frequent (or even enjoy) things like arena concerts where paying to park would be a given.

I would consider all of those to be mid-sized cities except for Dallas, and Dallas is so sprawling that parking probably isn't at a premium like it is in a more compact city like NYC or Toronto. Paying for parking is unfortunately not limited to events venues in most large cities... it's to be expected unless you're just dropping off passengers somewhere.

[formulanone]

I don't know if it was at airports or other places involving heavy security, but I remember a time or two going thru security lines and if we had a cell phone it had to be turned on so they could see it working (this may have even been pre-9/11; it's been so long).

If I'm flying out of Canada, I have been given the dreaded SSSS (this entails more stringent checks) on two occasions. I had to power on all electronic devices and verify they boot up, which took a few extra seconds per device, and about 5-6 minutes of standing to the side of the end of the security line. I have heard that if the screen is blank, you can charge it and then verify its operation. I have not been asked to perform this specific procedure in the US (with roughly 850-900 trips through security in this lifetime), but at least when I saw it print on my pass the second time, I permitted myself an extra 20 minutes or so than usual, though I budget a little more time for CPB and customs.

I have no idea if you are required to surrender an electronic device which suddenly refuses to turn on...

My only beef with airport security is that they need to be more consistent.  Last time my wife and I flew, we were in the same line.  There were two security booths.  The first one had someone yelling loudly "I JUST NEED YOUR BOARDING PASS. DO NOT GIVE ME YOUR ID".  When someone approached his line with their ID out, they loudly said "I SAID I DON'T NEED YOUR ID".  The other security person was checking boarding passes, but also wanted your ID.  But this person was much quieter.  So everyone who put their ID away and got this person got an irritated response from that security person they had to pull out their ID again. 

Yeah, and I think they do this somewhat on purpose; there's some similarity between airports, but there's a lot of the procedure which is the same. The TSA always a wants some form of identification, and in some cases, they have dispensed with needing to actually see your boarding pass. 

Larger airports have line checkers which serve no official purpose and hold no authority, but verify your boarding pass to make sure you're either (1) not mistakenly jumping into the "Premium Status" or pre-Check line (2) in the right terminal (3) have a boarding pass at all (4) have no right to see your ID.

[vdeane]

It's not clear to me why cell phone lots are due to airport security.  Arriving passengers don't go through a security check.  The cell phone lot is because how long it'll take the plane to get the gate and the passengers off varies widely.  We can still park in the short term parking lot and meet our arriving family and friends at the baggage claim.

Isn't the whole point of cell phone lots so that people circling in cars waiting for an arriving passenger for a status update?  If they were at the gate and not in their cars, no cell phone lot needed - in fact, they could get the update straight from the airport and avoid the call in the first place!