American City Business Journals via WTOP Radio: JetBlue defects to the dark side (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=249&sid=3761288&pid=0&page=1)
QuoteWhen I visited JetBlue Airways headquarters this summer, I was prepared to find the carrier in a metaphoric bunker, fending off attacks from howling security analysts who accused it, among other crimes, of being "overly brand-conscious and customer focused."
QuoteBut JetBlue wasn't in a bunker. Its executives had already surrendered and were activity formulating plans to destroy the airline's unique selling points and its nicely profitable niche as the nation's best-rated airline.
QuoteNot once at JetBlue's unprepossessing command center in the New York borough of Queens did I hear a defense of its policy to allow all customers to check a bag free of charge. Not once did I hear a defense of its fleet of Airbus A320 aircraft, which offers all flyers a humane 34 inches of legroom in comfy, thickly cushioned leather seats. Not once did I hear talk of the carrier's well-earned reputation for disruptive innovation, a policy that's made it the most successful aviation start-up in more than 30 years. And not once did I hear an executive promise to maintain JetBlue's 15-year reputation for being a markedly, provably, demonstrably better airline.
QuoteInstead, I heard rationalizations about the financial imperative of following the airline pack down the sinkhole of declining in-flight comfort. I got a lecture on the calculus of making your product just a little less awful than the other guys. And I also got the first draft of what is essentially JetBlue's new marketing mantra: We won't suck as much as the other guys.
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
Two words: It's faster.
The airlines have simultaneously offered more "a la carte services" as more perks and formerly free stuff are removed; theoretically, you pay only for what you need, but so as long as prices are as uneven as they are, someone feels the pinch.
For someone who plans their air travel months in advance, there's bargains to be had. For short-term planning and holiday travel, it sucks.
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
On my trips to Florida, I've generally driven. Once, I flew, because I paid under $200 r/t for the tickets. It's definitely faster, but I enjoy the drive as well. So for me, the cheaper the airline tickets are, the more likely I'll fly.
In the last week, I was in Punta Cana. Since there's no bridge there yet, flying is the 1 and only real option. Even cruise boats don't stop there, so that's not an option either!
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
Because people have different priorities than you. I know lots of folks whose family members are thousands of miles away. They can either drive to see them at the holidays, eating up several days in each direction, or fly and spend that extra time with the people they love. Frittering away their precious time on this earth rolling across drab interstates for days isn't everyone's cup of tea either.
I drove from Maryland to a conference in Denver, Colorado (and then on to Cove Fort in Utah), at least in part because of the opportunity to clinch all of I-70 in one (long) drive.
Could I have flown? Yes, especially after having lost a fair amount of weight, but I am not thin, so it's not very enjoyable.
Good thing I boarded my flights with Horizon and Alaska Airlines on my way to Alaska and back in 2008 instead of JetBlue.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 14, 2014, 12:49:41 AM
Good thing I boarded my flights with Horizon and Alaska Airlines on my way to Alaska and back in 2008 instead of JetBlue.
Excellent choice Mr F. Any flight to and from Alaska done on any airline other than Alaska Airlines is pure insanity. No other airline comes anywhere close to flying so often in such treacherous conditions.
Oh, not even close. The Horizon/Alaska pilots excel real nicely in cold weather conditions. The flight staff are great and make you feel like you can enjoy the sights and sounds of the plane. Can JetBlue match that? Answer: N O!
Quote from: formulanone on December 13, 2014, 02:28:02 PM
Two words: It's faster.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 13, 2014, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
Because people have different priorities than you. I know lots of folks whose family members are thousands of miles away. They can either drive to see them at the holidays, eating up several days in each direction, or fly and spend that extra time with the people they love. Frittering away their precious time on this earth rolling across drab interstates for days isn't everyone's cup of tea either.
To me, "it's faster" is not worth being treated like cattle by the airlines, like a terrorist by the government, subjected to being crammed in with a bunch of annoying people, all the while the threat of lost/stolen luggage is present. No thanks. This is even one reason why I'll never move out of the northeast. Unfortunately it probably also means that I'll never get to places like New Zealand.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2014, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 13, 2014, 02:28:02 PM
Two words: It's faster.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 13, 2014, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
Because people have different priorities than you. I know lots of folks whose family members are thousands of miles away. They can either drive to see them at the holidays, eating up several days in each direction, or fly and spend that extra time with the people they love. Frittering away their precious time on this earth rolling across drab interstates for days isn't everyone's cup of tea either.
To me, "it's faster" is not worth being treated like cattle by the airlines, like a terrorist by the government, subjected to being crammed in with a bunch of annoying people, all the while the threat of lost/stolen luggage is present. No thanks. This is even one reason why I'll never move out of the northeast. Unfortunately it probably also means that I'll never get to places like New Zealand.
When was the last time you've flown? For the vast majority of experiences, it's really not that bad. You hear about the sensational annoying passengers in the media but most of the time everyone is pretty compliant. Also, unless you really are of above average height and weight, the airline seats are not that bad for even a cross country flight.
As someone who is significantly above average height and weight, I only fly first class, Virgin America main cabin select, or Frontier stretch seating. And I always skip the body scanner in favor of the rub and tug, because fuck the TSA and everyone who works for them.
Quote from: dfwmapper on December 15, 2014, 02:25:41 AM
As someone who is significantly above average height and weight, I only fly first class, Virgin America main cabin select, or Frontier stretch seating. And I always skip the body scanner in favor of the rub and tug, because fuck the TSA and everyone who works for them.
I like a good tug while waiting for my flight; gonna skip the scanner next time. Thnx for the info.
If I can't drive there, I have no business being there. :sombrero:
The worst thing about the TSA is how they tend to talk down to you, especially if you didn't do something perfectly correct, and the fact that you never know what to do because each agent does their own thing. When I fly with my wife, sometimes we both see the credential check person at the same time; other times they tell us one has to wait behind the sign.
Sometimes I've had good experiences; other times they're rude as hell. This past trip, the agents in ATL were very friendly. In PUJ, they didn't have the new fangled "we see what you look like naked" equipment, so everyone was patted down (either method is fine with me).
Planes - eh. I don't have any issues with the seating. But I swear I get bronchitis every time I fly anymore.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2014, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 13, 2014, 02:28:02 PM
Two words: It's faster.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 13, 2014, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
Because people have different priorities than you. I know lots of folks whose family members are thousands of miles away. They can either drive to see them at the holidays, eating up several days in each direction, or fly and spend that extra time with the people they love. Frittering away their precious time on this earth rolling across drab interstates for days isn't everyone's cup of tea either.
To me, "it's faster" is not worth being treated like cattle by the airlines, like a terrorist by the government, subjected to being crammed in with a bunch of annoying people, all the while the threat of lost/stolen luggage is present. No thanks. This is even one reason why I'll never move out of the northeast. Unfortunately it probably also means that I'll never get to places like New Zealand.
You can of course impose whatever limits you choose on yourself. But the answer to "why people put up with this" is that a lot of reasonable people put certain life needs above avoiding the indignity of flying. Hell, people eat at fast food restaurants because it's faster, and its considerable ill effects linger well longer than airline treatment. People have to make choices between bad things every day.
For me, flying versus driving (assuming the option exists....Hawaii and Europe aren't places to which I can easily drive) depends in part on the distance involved, the time to be spent at the destination, the reason for the trip, and the cost of flying and renting a car. We usually drive to Florida because we spend a minimum of a week. A day and a half at one end (we take the Auto Train home, a single overnight ride) is no big deal for a whole week compared to the cost of flying (two people) and renting a car. If we were going for a four-day weekend, of course we'd fly. We made a Labor Day weekend football trip to Laramie, Wyoming, a few years back, and obviously that was a flying trip for the same reason–too far to drive for a weekend trip (plus I was very busy with work).
When we go skiing in Quebec we always drive because we can be in Montreal in ten hours and I'd rather transport our ski equipment myself than let an airline do it.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2014, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 13, 2014, 02:28:02 PM
Two words: It's faster.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 13, 2014, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
Because people have different priorities than you. I know lots of folks whose family members are thousands of miles away. They can either drive to see them at the holidays, eating up several days in each direction, or fly and spend that extra time with the people they love. Frittering away their precious time on this earth rolling across drab interstates for days isn't everyone's cup of tea either.
To me, "it's faster" is not worth being treated like cattle by the airlines, like a terrorist by the government, subjected to being crammed in with a bunch of annoying people, all the while the threat of lost/stolen luggage is present. No thanks. This is even one reason why I'll never move out of the northeast. Unfortunately it probably also means that I'll never get to places like New Zealand.
More at: it's necessary for my job. Given the opportunity, I'll drive if it saves the company money, especially if it will get me home faster, or if it offers new roads to drive on. I profit nicely from the mileage, but the client's expectation of my prompt arrival comes first. Which means there's no way to travel 1000 miles each way and be home in time to see my wife and kids without the aid of airlines.
Biggest perks are that I can spend more time with family (provided there's no mechanical/weather delays), the best window office seat in the world, and the frequent flier miles/perks are mine to bank. That, and the variety of different places every week prevents the job from getting too stale.
I think I'm just used to the never-ending BS that comes with it all, which does grind out some people down from the first 6 months of the job. Some of the things like TSA Pre-Check, free bags on most airlines, preferential selection, seating, upgrades, and boarding make things easier for frequent fliers...something I take for granted until I have to fly with an airline for which I have "no status".
In return, I don't really have to deal with rush hour traffic as much, but that's only foiled because I get to the airport around the time some folks are just waking up. (Wait...why do I do this again?)
Why JetBlue would trade their loyalty to be much like other airlines is beyond me. On the other hand, sometimes airlines make decisions which they use to test the waters. Some airlines make immediate changes to their policies, which can be particularly aggravating. So at least they'll wait around and see what the public thinks (not necessarily caring) and move from there. So they'll either look like the Prodigal Son for keeping their identity by reversing their decision, or become just another tin pusher in Satan's Bowels for charging more like the rest.
If JetBlue sees a large drop in passenger counts, then they'll know that asking another $25 out of every other passenger wasn't worth losing a $400 fare. It sounds like a test of loyalty; if they keep 95-99% of their pax because of the changes, they've still come out ahead. But if they also get to fill more seats because they created more seating capacity, then they've become even more profitable. After all, installing and reconfiguring an existing cabin for an extra row or two of seats costs a lot less than leasing another aircraft and paying another crew.
But if they can also keep the goodwill, personality, and service...then they hope that will keep them afloat. Airlines talk about personal service, but they also realize that most of their passengers shop by lowest prices first, convenience second. Probably the offer of a direct flight sways decisions for a little more money.
Airlines started charging for bags around 8-9 years ago to combat rising oil prices. As the price of jet fuel has decreased in the past few months, it sure seems like an unusual decision...although I'm guessing the flying public has long forgotten of the rationale for the fee, which ramped up the usage of carry-on luggage (typically free on most airlines).
Quote from: formulanone on December 15, 2014, 10:17:55 AMMore at: it's necessary for my job. Given the opportunity, I'll drive if it saves the company money, especially if it will get me home faster, or if it offers new roads to drive on. I profit nicely from the mileage, but the client's expectation of my prompt arrival comes first. Which means there's no way to travel 1000 miles each way and be home in time to see my wife and kids without the aid of airlines.
Other side of the coin: there are some companies where business travel is used as a punishment. It is the airborne equivalent of "freeway therapy" at employers that have multiple offices across a large, congested metropolitan area.
QuoteAirlines started charging for bags around 8-9 years ago to combat rising oil prices. As the price of jet fuel has decreased in the past few months, it sure seems like an unusual decision...although I'm guessing the flying public has long forgotten of the rationale for the fee, which ramped up the usage of carry-on luggage (typically free on most airlines).
The airlines also liked separate baggage fees because (1) unbundling allows them to quote lower fares in their advertising, and (2) fees in general are "sticky," which means the customer does not expect them to be waived or phased out, and thus they defend the airline's profitability whether oil prices are low or high.
Quote from: formulanone on December 15, 2014, 10:17:55 AM
Why JetBlue would trade their loyalty to be much like other airlines is beyond me. On the other hand, sometimes airlines make decisions which they use to test the waters. Some airlines make immediate changes to their policies, which can be particularly aggravating. So at least they'll wait around and see what the public thinks (not necessarily caring) and move from there. So they'll either look like the Prodigal Son for keeping their identity by reversing their decision, or become just another tin pusher in Satan's Bowels for charging more like the rest.
If JetBlue sees a large drop in passenger counts, then they'll know that asking another $25 out of every other passenger wasn't worth losing a $400 fare. It sounds like a test of loyalty; if they keep 95-99% of their pax because of the changes, they've still come out ahead. But if they also get to fill more seats because they created more seating capacity, then they've become even more profitable. After all, installing and reconfiguring an existing cabin for an extra row or two of seats costs a lot less than leasing another aircraft and paying another crew.
But if they can also keep the goodwill, personality, and service...then they hope that will keep them afloat. Airlines talk about personal service, but they also realize that most of their passengers shop by lowest prices first, convenience second. Probably the offer of a direct flight sways decisions for a little more money.
Airlines started charging for bags around 8-9 years ago to combat rising oil prices. As the price of jet fuel has decreased in the past few months, it sure seems like an unusual decision...although I'm guessing the flying public has long forgotten of the rationale for the fee, which ramped up the usage of carry-on luggage (typically free on most airlines).
On a similar note:
In Las Vegas, hotels started charging resort fees. There's 2 main companies out there: MGM & Harrahs. MGM charged the resort fees, Harrahs didn't. In fact, Harrahs made a huge deal that they were resort fee free. On forums such as TripAdvisor, people bitched and moaned nonstop about the resort fees. And guess what happened? Nothing. MGM saw occupancy levels remain just as steady as they always had been. So MGM decided what the hey...let's raise the resort fees. And then guess what? Occupancy levels still remained level.
Finally, one day, Harrahs jumped in and started charging resort fees as well. People howled and cried. And you know what...those people still come. Hell, even small hotels started charging resort fees because they could...and people would pay them. Payouts for some games are reduced. People still play.
Returning to JetBlue: This is exactly what FormulaOne is describing. JetBlue may have a dedicated fan base, or they may have people that have seeked them out because of pricing, or maybe passengers went with them because they flew where they needed to go. People are going to bitch and moan about everything, but they ultimately decide who they're going to use. If they decide to stick with JetBlue, it only means increased profits for the company.
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Just one of many reasons why I won't fly. I don't understand why people put up with this.
One thing I've noticed is that the "cutoff distance" for drive vs. fly is still increasing. Back before 9/11, people from my old firm used to fly from Raleigh to Charlotte for meetings because it was fast and easy. Now, a family friend who lives on the east end of Long Island has decided it is easier to drive from there to Chicago than to fly, because of all the hassle involved.
It's sad to see it happen, but JetBlue is just grappling with some unfortunate realities. An airline's profitability is largely dependent on attracting and maintaining the loyalty of business travelers–people who in many cases aren't spending their own money. While price isn't entirely a nonissue to this group, it's secondary to the convenience of the airline's route map and schedules–and the value of its rewards program. For everyone else–the occasional and leisure travelers–air travel has essentially been commoditized, and absolutely everything hinges on the raw ticket price (before fees). How else do you explain the fact that Spirit, the most loathsome, nickel-and-dime airline in America, is also the most profitable and fastest growing–while the once high-flying fan favorite JetBlue is coming back down to Earth and the equally beloved Virgin America has been hemorrhaging money for years?
Southwest has been fairly resolute in maintaining their original sense of purpose, but even they have taken a tinge of the big airline-isms that have spread across the industry. For example, they still have their egalitarian one-class cabin (no first class), but the boarding procedures have changed in recent years to heavily favor their frequent fliers, high-dollar business fares, and people who pay extra for the privilege. Since I fly Southwest so often, I'm guaranteed an A boarding position, but I can imagine that if I was the occasional traveler who got stuck with a C boarding pass–and therefore a middle seat in the back of the plane–I'd love Southwest a lot less.
Part of me hopes they keep their "bags fly free" policy forever, but on the other hand, I never check bags, so I'm merely subsidizing the people who do.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2014, 06:31:44 PM
To me, "it's faster" is not worth being treated like cattle by the airlines, like a terrorist by the government...
If you never fly, where are you getting this impression of air travel? It's nowhere near as bad as that. But it's incredibly easier for the frequent traveler. Even in a major airport on a busy day, I don't think I've ever been more than the 10th person in line for TSA Pre Check. You don't have to take anything out of your bag, take your shoes off, or even take off your jacket. You walk through a standard metal detector (not a body scanner), and that's it. It might as well be 1987 again. At my two most commonly-used airports (SFO and LAX...both very large and busy airports), my average time–from stepping onto the curb to arriving at my gate–is about 10 minutes.
I'll agree with vdeane and disagree with yanksfan; I'm a plane spotter / aviation enthusiast, and I still think that flying sucks. My last flight from YVR to YUL sucked. Nothing in particular happened besides a bit of turbulence; it's just the entire experience, from the check-in in Vancouver to getting in the car in Montreal that was less-than-enjoyable in its whole. Arrive hours early at the airport, check-in, pay through the nose for my ski gear, have it swabbed forever by a CATSA agent, empty all my shit while going through security because a piece of fudge and the fact that my laptop was missing key were suspicious, eat a crappy overpriced lunch, wait at the gate while the plane comes in late, get shoved into the Airbus A320 in the most inefficient way possible (see Mythbusters), plow through a pile of people shoving insane amounts of baggage into the oveheads, then sit in as little space as possible. Of course, the guy in front of me lowered his seat as far back as possible, eliminating whatever little space I had (I'm not even tall). Had my laptop, didn't pull it out; it was too cramped. Later, I wanted to pee, but the the two people between my window seat and the aisle were firmly installed in front of their iPad and laptop watching a movie, and the attendant was going through with the food cart. I just sucked it up and waited for the rest of the five hour flight. Nothing to look at through the tiny window (it was at night), my neighbour's movie sucked, the games on my phones grew bland after about an hour and I didn't feel like sleeping. Then there's the crowd at the baggage claim at the other end of the trip, and our friend navigating the traffic in the airport loop and trying to find a spot to pick us up. Good thing it was a domestic flight and I didn't have to go through customs...
Not a single time did I feel like someone ever gave a shit about me as a customer, and I paid a couple of hundred to be subjected to that.
Quite the contrast from Amtrak and especially VIA Rail, if you ask me.
And all in all, it was a pretty average flight. No screaming babies, no major turbulence (by my standards, my friend would disagree), no annoying passengers, no baggage falling from the overhead, no one got sick.
The main problem is that pretty much everyone involved (the airports, the airlines, the TSA, etc.) knows that they can get away with offering the shittiest service and the least comfort they legally can (especially in Economy!) and people will still buy plane tickets, because it's such a time saver. Replacing free things by à la carte offerings while keeping the ticket price as is (or even raising it) will only aggravate their customers, not drive them away. JetBlue's "Cheapening" is just a very sad demonstration of how bad that whole thing has gotten.
Got to show the "share holders" their expected %1000/quarter gains at all cost.
This country really needs a decent a long distance passenger train system, not the shell that Amtrak is.
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on December 14, 2014, 06:52:03 PM
When was the last time you've flown? For the vast majority of experiences, it's really not that bad. You hear about the sensational annoying passengers in the media but most of the time everyone is pretty compliant. Also, unless you really are of above average height and weight, the airline seats are not that bad for even a cross country flight.
About six months after I was born. So yeah, I'm not used to all the BS from the airlines and the TSA
at all. Aside from picking up/dropping off a rental car, the last time I even set foot in an airport was when Mom and I dropped off or picked up Dad from one of his business trips in the mid 90s, back when security was just a metal detector at the terminal (rather than a checkpoint with naked body scanners and "enhanced" "patdowns" (read: sexual assault), etc. just to get past the lobby) and nobody needed the permission from anyone to get to the boarding area if they weren't getting on the plane.
I don't mind the idea of small seats (in fact, I
like small, cramped spaces); it's being crammed in with complete strangers that gets me. I find extended periods with people I don't know to be rather draining.
Quote from: briantroutman on December 15, 2014, 01:12:13 PM
If you never fly, where are you getting this impression of air travel? It's nowhere near as bad as that. But it's incredibly easier for the frequent traveler. Even in a major airport on a busy day, I don't think I've ever been more than the 10th person in line for TSA Pre Check. You don't have to take anything out of your bag, take your shoes off, or even take off your jacket. You walk through a standard metal detector (not a body scanner), and that's it. It might as well be 1987 again. At my two most commonly-used airports (SFO and LAX...both very large and busy airports), my average time–from stepping onto the curb to arriving at my gate–is about 10 minutes.
The internet - where every complaint from the holiday/annual vacation-only travelers with no Pre Check, frequent flier bonuses, etc. gets aired out. Obviously if I ever needed to fly I wouldn't have any of those things that would help make the experience more pleasant. And as an introvert, the idea of any means of transit where I have to come into contact with other people will automatically be rated lower than driving as a given. Plus reading about all the TSA stuff is enough to consider the whole process humiliating (FYI, my threshold for that is likely to be lower than for most people).
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2014, 10:55:09 AMThe airlines also liked separate baggage fees because (1) unbundling allows them to quote lower fares in their advertising, and (2) fees in general are "sticky," which means the customer does not expect them to be waived or phased out, and thus they defend the airline's profitability whether oil prices are low or high.
Actually, the unbundling of services (including the introduction of checked bag fees) started around 2008 when fuel prices soared and increased airline competition (compared to just a few years earlier) at more airports meant that carriers couldn't just increase their fares to offset any bump in fuel costs.
At large, the flying public was brainwashed/sold a bill of goods on the notion that these new fees meant that airfares would not increase (in in some instances, go down). Some carriers even went as far to
infer that the fees were only a temporary measure until fuel prices stabilized (I remember seeing a placard at a Northwest Airlines counter stating such just before they started charging for the first checked bag).
So what happened since? Several carriers shut down for good (ATA, Aloha, Champion Air) and others have since merged; Delta & Northwest, Frontier & Midwest, United & Continental, Southwest & AirTran (still in progress) and finally American & US Airways (still in progress). As result, fares in many markets have actually gone up due to reduced overall competition and rising (until recently) fuel prices.
Quote from: pctech on December 15, 2014, 01:20:05 PMGot to show the "share holders" their expected %1000/quarter gains at all cost.
Bingo! That's exactly why JetBlue is doing such and many on aviation-forum sites like Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net) will tell you that first hand.
It's worth noting that many on that site keep saying that Southwest will eventually have to backtrack on their
Bags Fly Free slogan/campaign in order to please its shareholders. Hopefully, that day will never come; although Southwest could try to charge for the 2nd checked bag and still keep the first checked bag free now that JetBlue will no longer offer a free checked bag with the base fare.
Pre-Check is awesome! So is Nexus! And you know what both programs are? Both are basically requiring you to "apply" for the ability to be treated the way you were pre-9/11. Although I object to the concept in principle, in the world that we are in today, I don't see any reasonable alternative. But the whole system is basically based on a presumption of guilt, and "prove you are not a bad guy" (via enrollment in Pre-Check or Nexus) rather than the government having to prove that you are a bad guy.
I'd love to have Nexus; unfortunately I don't cross the border nearly often enough to justify it (at the current rate I might cross once every couple/few years since my travel is almost entirely NY outside of roadmeets for the foreseeable future (though next year will be an oddball with 2 of my 3 non-roadmeet/non-family trips including Vermont and Massachusetts)), and I'm pretty sure the explanation of "I'm a roadgeek who's tired of trying to phrase her travel plans in a way more easily understood by customs agents just looking for any excuse possible to search someone" won't fly (pardon the pun) as an answer to "why are you applying for this program". (I'm pretty sure "so I can legally clinch NY 182" wouldn't work either)
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 15, 2014, 01:57:13 PMActually, the unbundling of services (including the introduction of checked bag fees) started around 2008 when fuel prices soared and increased airline competition (compared to just a few years earlier) at more airports meant that carriers couldn't just increase their fares to offset any bump in fuel costs.
At large, the flying public was brainwashed/sold a bill of goods on the notion that these new fees meant that airfares would not increase (in in some instances, go down). Some carriers even went as far to infer that the fees were only a temporary measure until fuel prices stabilized (I remember seeing a placard at a Northwest Airlines counter stating such just before they started charging for the first checked bag).
I agree high fuel prices were part of the justification the airlines cited at the time. However, in a newspaper article on the airline industry I read some time after baggage fees were phased in, the stickiness of such fees was cited as one reason it was a complete pipe dream to expect them to go away when fuel prices dropped.
QuoteSo what happened since? Several carriers shut down for good (ATA, Aloha, Champion Air) and others have since merged; Delta & Northwest, Frontier & Midwest, United & Continental, Southwest & AirTran (still in progress) and finally American & US Airways (still in progress). As result, fares in many markets have actually gone up due to reduced overall competition and rising (until recently) fuel prices.
A lot of these mergers occurred after one of the airlines involved had to declare bankruptcy. I have long suspected that the airlines use the bankruptcy court to establish monopoly positions, which they can then milk through capacity realignments (high seat occupancy percentages, together with declining seat pitch, are important reasons the experience of flying is now so bad).
Quote from: briantroutman on December 15, 2014, 01:12:13 PM
If you never fly, where are you getting this impression of air travel? It's nowhere near as bad as that. But it's incredibly easier for the frequent traveler. Even in a major airport on a busy day, I don't think I've ever been more than the 10th person in line for TSA Pre Check. You don't have to take anything out of your bag, take your shoes off, or even take off your jacket. You walk through a standard metal detector (not a body scanner), and that's it. It might as well be 1987 again. At my two most commonly-used airports (SFO and LAX...both very large and busy airports), my average time–from stepping onto the curb to arriving at my gate–is about 10 minutes.
Really? My last flight was Seattle-San Jose, CA and back, last July. Both ways, show ID, take shoes off, empty pockets, take jackets off, take some things out of carryon and send through the scanner flat, about 20 minutes just for security.
It varies a lot by airport. The past couple of times I've been through the Oklahoma City airport, they've had me go through the Pre-Check line, which is how briantroutman describes it: metal detector, keep your shoes on (though I had to take mine off anyway the last time because my shoes have metal in them), and you don't have to take stuff out of your bag.
Quote from: kkt on December 15, 2014, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on December 15, 2014, 01:12:13 PM
If you never fly, where are you getting this impression of air travel? It's nowhere near as bad as that. But it's incredibly easier for the frequent traveler. Even in a major airport on a busy day, I don't think I've ever been more than the 10th person in line for TSA Pre Check. You don't have to take anything out of your bag, take your shoes off, or even take off your jacket. You walk through a standard metal detector (not a body scanner), and that's it. It might as well be 1987 again. At my two most commonly-used airports (SFO and LAX...both very large and busy airports), my average time–from stepping onto the curb to arriving at my gate–is about 10 minutes.
Really? My last flight was Seattle-San Jose, CA and back, last July. Both ways, show ID, take shoes off, empty pockets, take jackets off, take some things out of carryon and send through the scanner flat, about 20 minutes just for security.
Seattle-Tacoma, being the only major airport for Seattle, can get a lot busier than LAX and SFO (both airports have a number of alternatives). That said, I fly A LOT and it really depends on when your flight is, the time of year, and the day of the week. I park in the Port of Seattle employee lot (I got a hookup) and take the bus to the airport which can take about 10-15 minutes depending on how lucky we get with the signals. Then I take an elevator up the the fourth floor to the check-in area (always use confirmation codes to print the tickets). I always gate-check bags (if necessary) because then they don't charge you, but I rarely have to check bags at all. As for security, the key is to keep as much shit in your bag before-hand (jewelry, watches, hats, etc) as humanly possible. Always avoid the lines with kids and old people (they never know the rules) and always wear slip-on shoes. Generally, the more you fly, the quicker you can slide through security.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 02:00:51 PM
Pre-Check is awesome! So is Nexus! And you know what both programs are? Both are basically requiring you to "apply" for the ability to be treated the way you were pre-9/11. Although I object to the concept in principle, in the world that we are in today, I don't see any reasonable alternative. But the whole system is basically based on a presumption of guilt, and "prove you are not a bad guy" (via enrollment in Pre-Check or Nexus) rather than the government having to prove that you are a bad guy.
Good you put "apply" in quotes. The three flights from U.S. airports I took this year (DCA-SAN via DFW, SAN-IAD via MDW, DCA-YUL), i got Pre-Checked without having to lift a finger. And it's not like I'm a frequent air traveler, either, so I don't know how anyone got the idea I'm trustworthy.
If Canada has a similar program, I didn't get covered by it on the flights I had to go through security (Montreal-Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuaq-Iqaluit, Yellowknife-Toronto via Edmonton, Toronto-DCA in 2014, Halifax-Goose Bay and back in 2013).
Quote from: oscar on December 15, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
Good you put "apply" in quotes. The three flights from U.S. airports I took this year (DCA-SAN via DFW, SAN-IAD via MDW, DCA-YUL), i got Pre-Checked without having to lift a finger. And it's not like I'm a frequent air traveler, either, so I don't know how anyone got the idea I'm trustworthy.
Among frequent travelers, the number one complaint about TSA Pre Check is that non-Pre Check people are being let into the line. And based on my experiences and the accounts of other travelers, it seems that seniors and families–the two groups that are probably least able to move through the line swiftly–are the most frequent targets to get this free, unexpected "upgrade" . And since it is unexpected, they start taking off their shoes, undoing belts, pulling things out of their bags...until a TSA agent yells at them. They're unhappy because they don't know why they're being yelled at, and the frequent travelers are upset because their express lane has turned into a parking lot.
My understanding is that the TSA is under some kind of congressional pressure to pass a certain minimum percentage of passengers through Pre Check lines. And since the number of travelers voluntarily signing up for Pre hasn't met expectations, they've been diverting regular passengers into Pre. My impression is that this practice has declined somewhat, because it hasn't been an issue in any of my October or November flights.
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.
Quote from: oscar on December 15, 2014, 06:30:18 PMIf Canada has a similar program, I didn't get covered by it on the flights I had to go through security (Montreal-Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuaq-Iqaluit, Yellowknife-Toronto via Edmonton, Toronto-DCA in 2014, Halifax-Goose Bay and back in 2013).
I think only Nexus members get expedited security in Canada, unless there's another program that I'm not aware of.
This is a good time to bring up the point best made by Louis CK — you sit in a chair and you sail at hundreds of miles per hour through the sky like a god. Whatever you went through wasn't that bad. You were not forced to swap fluids with a stranger, you were not stripped naked and beaten, you weren't even deprived of any of your so-called rights. You were inconvenienced for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange received a service that was nothing less than incredible.
The complaints that go around about the miserable experience of flying are the textbook definition of a first-world problem.
http://youtu.be/b3dYS7PcAG4
Quote from: oscar on December 15, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 02:00:51 PM
Pre-Check is awesome! So is Nexus! And you know what both programs are? Both are basically requiring you to "apply" for the ability to be treated the way you were pre-9/11. Although I object to the concept in principle, in the world that we are in today, I don't see any reasonable alternative. But the whole system is basically based on a presumption of guilt, and "prove you are not a bad guy" (via enrollment in Pre-Check or Nexus) rather than the government having to prove that you are a bad guy.
Good you put "apply" in quotes. The three flights from U.S. airports I took this year (DCA-SAN via DFW, SAN-IAD via MDW, DCA-YUL), i got Pre-Checked without having to lift a finger. And it's not like I'm a frequent air traveler, either, so I don't know how anyone got the idea I'm trustworthy.
I got it in 2012 through Delta, around when they (along with other majors) through their hubs. Unfortunately, that means I only get it on through that airline. It was expanded to more airports in 2013, and handed out "randomly" on occasion to some less-frequent passengers starting in January 2014.
I've noticed many more passengers over the age of 50-55 seemed to qualify more often than younger passengers, although I've seen parents with young children also qualify (at random, although I think this is out of convenience, since children under 12 don't have to use body scanners nor take off shoes).
So yes, it's possible in even busy airports to enter through the front ticketing entrance to your gate in 5-10 minutes, if the airport is small enough or off-peak. Monday mornings at HSV can be 5-20 minutes for the first flight of the day, and I've had 5-10 minute waits at LAX and JFK at best thanks to Pre-Check. Worst was New Orleans and Chicago-Midway...they both seemed to be unprepared and understaffed at busy moments. Could have just been a bad day.
Quote from: formulanone on December 15, 2014, 09:24:58 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 15, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 15, 2014, 02:00:51 PM
Pre-Check is awesome! So is Nexus! And you know what both programs are? Both are basically requiring you to "apply" for the ability to be treated the way you were pre-9/11. Although I object to the concept in principle, in the world that we are in today, I don't see any reasonable alternative. But the whole system is basically based on a presumption of guilt, and "prove you are not a bad guy" (via enrollment in Pre-Check or Nexus) rather than the government having to prove that you are a bad guy.
Good you put "apply" in quotes. The three flights from U.S. airports I took this year (DCA-SAN via DFW, SAN-IAD via MDW, DCA-YUL), i got Pre-Checked without having to lift a finger. And it's not like I'm a frequent air traveler, either, so I don't know how anyone got the idea I'm trustworthy.
I got it in 2012 through Delta, around when they (along with other majors) through their hubs. Unfortunately, that means I only get it on through that airline. It was expanded to more airports in 2013, and handed out "randomly" on occasion to some less-frequent passengers starting in January 2014.
I've noticed many more passengers over the age of 50-55 seemed to qualify more often than younger passengers, although I've seen parents with young children also qualify (at random, although I think this is out of convenience, since children under 12 don't have to use body scanners nor take off shoes).
Since my three flights in 2014 out of U.S. airports were on three different airlines (American, Southwest, Air Canada), I probably didn't get Pre-Check through an airline. I am over 55, and maybe that plus luck of the draw was enough to get me a gimme from TSA.
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
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.
So I have to pay to check a bag - which is a necessity for travel. But the 800 channels of crappy TV at the seats is free - although it is not a necessity for travel. Am I the only one who sees something wrong here.
Quote from: vdeane on December 15, 2014, 01:53:37 PMAside from picking up/dropping off a rental car, the last time I even set foot in an airport was when Mom and I dropped off or picked up Dad from one of his business trips in the mid 90s, back when security was just a metal detector at the terminal (rather than a checkpoint with naked body scanners and "enhanced" "patdowns" [read: sexual assault], etc. just to get past the lobby) and nobody needed the permission from anyone to get to the boarding area if they weren't getting on the plane.
In the US, the "enhanced patdown" is normally used only when a passenger refuses to go through the full-body scanner. In other countries such as Britain, where the TSA "enhanced patdown" is not used because it is considered sexual assault, there is no option to refuse full-body scanning.
The last time I underwent a patdown was actually not at a US airport, but at Heathrow immediately before a flight to the US. One aspect of security theater that is not usually mentioned in the US media is that we assert extraterritorial jurisdiction by requiring a secondary security inspection for US-bound flights. In Britain this means additional security screening at the gate, without X-ray machines, metal detectors, or full-body scanners (which are used at the primary checkpoints you must pass to go airside), but with full fingertip inspection of carry-on luggage and a patdown that stops short of contact with the genitals or breasts.
QuoteI don't mind the idea of small seats (in fact, I like small, cramped spaces); it's being crammed in with complete strangers that gets me. I find extended periods with people I don't know to be rather draining.
I wonder if movie theaters raise a similar difficulty for you. I am an introvert, but it is not being in shared spaces with hundreds of other people that I find draining about air travel, since it is very rare that I encounter anyone who is not absolutely respectful of others' personal space or desire to be left alone. For me the mental fatigue comes mostly from having to be constantly aware of my carry-on luggage, which on transatlantic flights generally includes my computer equipment (one or two laptops plus at least one mass storage device) since it cannot safely be packed in checked luggage. Theft is always a worry with data equipment, but the real headaches come from maneuvering in and out of toilet stalls while minimizing the contact luggage, coats, etc. have with the floor around the toilet.
In the 10 years or so I was flying transatlantically at least once a year, there was only one flight where I nearly sat next to a Chatty Cathy. She was an older woman and the flight was from Chicago to London. I had my plane book in hand and when she started talking and saw I was reading my book, she decided to move one row forward, next to a somewhat younger woman travelling on a Pakistani passport. I could see her only through the narrow gap between the seats in front, but her head was bobbing up and down (the way some people's do when they talk) for the entirety of that eight-hour flight: that level of stamina is astonishing and I suspect it came largely from nervousness.
QuoteThe internet - where every complaint from the holiday/annual vacation-only travelers with no Pre Check, frequent flier bonuses, etc. gets aired out. Obviously if I ever needed to fly I wouldn't have any of those things that would help make the experience more pleasant. And as an introvert, the idea of any means of transit where I have to come into contact with other people will automatically be rated lower than driving as a given. Plus reading about all the TSA stuff is enough to consider the whole process humiliating (FYI, my threshold for that is likely to be lower than for most people).
There are some special reasons it is hellish to travel over the holidays. Fares are expensive, load factors are super close to 100%, terminals are quite congested, and the stakes and stress are quite high since a delay or cancellation often means missing family holiday festivities. Flying is much less stressful for leisure travellers who leave themselves free to fly midweek, when fares and load factors tend to be much lower.
I personally prefer to drive, but I wouldn't want to limit myself to that mode of transport. Aside from its putting destinations outside North America out of reach, "flyover" driving--the long-distance, high-speed driving you have to do along mostly familiar roads in order to reach the areas of scenic interest you want to see--tends to offer a much lower return in terms of satisfaction. When I travelled from Wichita to Seattle to visit an old friend, I had to scrape the barrel (and ask on here) for routes that were reasonably on the way that I hadn't already seen during previous trips. I didn't mind the four days it took to reach Seattle or the two days it took to get back to Wichita once I finished my sightseeing, since I had the leisure to take an extended West Coast vacation. However, the next time I make a trip for the express purpose of seeing my friend in Seattle, I suspect it will be by air.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
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.
Well, anyone who does a simple price comparison would realize that. If someone is a Southwest diehard, they won't find out. But that's true of any airline...if I only used United.com, I wouldn't know what the other airlines fares are either.
But, there can be deals to be had on Southwest. Last year, I flew in January to Vegas from Philly for $163 r/t...and the price actually dropped to $153 after I booked (I got the $10 credit for the change, but never had a chance to use it). Like anything else, gotta be patient, and/or jump on an unexpected price drop when the opportunity presents itself.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2014, 12:18:58 PM
But, there can be deals to be had on Southwest. Last year, I flew in January to Vegas from Philly for $163 r/t...and the price actually dropped to $153 after I booked (I got the $10 credit for the change, but never had a chance to use it). Like anything else, gotta be patient, and/or jump on an unexpected price drop when the opportunity presents itself.
I was pleasantly surprised to check Southwest's site several weeks ago and find I could fly home for Christmas (OKC-DCA) for $182 round trip. I had been expecting to spend around $300.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
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.
How is that even
legal? I thought being able to compare prices was one of the central tenants of the free market capitalist system we claim to love!
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 15, 2014, 09:12:07 PM
This is a good time to bring up the point best made by Louis CK — you sit in a chair and you sail at hundreds of miles per hour through the sky like a god. Whatever you went through wasn't that bad. You were not forced to swap fluids with a stranger, you were not stripped naked and beaten, you weren't even deprived of any of your so-called rights. You were inconvenienced for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange received a service that was nothing less than incredible.
The complaints that go around about the miserable experience of flying are the textbook definition of a first-world problem.
http://youtu.be/b3dYS7PcAG4
Hey, just because you don't have issues with naked body scanners or "enhanced" pat-downs because no bodily fluid is exchanged doesn't mean it's not the same with everyone else. There are NUMEROUS stories of people with disabilities, recovering from rape/sexual assault, or are transgender that have numerous issues.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 16, 2014, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 15, 2014, 01:53:37 PMAside from picking up/dropping off a rental car, the last time I even set foot in an airport was when Mom and I dropped off or picked up Dad from one of his business trips in the mid 90s, back when security was just a metal detector at the terminal (rather than a checkpoint with naked body scanners and "enhanced" "patdowns" [read: sexual assault], etc. just to get past the lobby) and nobody needed the permission from anyone to get to the boarding area if they weren't getting on the plane.
In the US, the "enhanced patdown" is normally used only when a passenger refuses to go through the full-body scanner. In other countries such as Britain, where the TSA "enhanced patdown" is not used because it is considered sexual assault, there is no option to refuse full-body scanning.
The last time I underwent a patdown was actually not at a US airport, but at Heathrow immediately before a flight to the US. One aspect of security theater that is not usually mentioned in the US media is that we assert extraterritorial jurisdiction by requiring a secondary security inspection for US-bound flights. In Britain this means additional security screening at the gate, without X-ray machines, metal detectors, or full-body scanners (which are used at the primary checkpoints you must pass to go airside), but with full fingertip inspection of carry-on luggage and a patdown that stops short of contact with the genitals or breasts.
QuoteI don't mind the idea of small seats (in fact, I like small, cramped spaces); it's being crammed in with complete strangers that gets me. I find extended periods with people I don't know to be rather draining.
I wonder if movie theaters raise a similar difficulty for you. I am an introvert, but it is not being in shared spaces with hundreds of other people that I find draining about air travel, since it is very rare that I encounter anyone who is not absolutely respectful of others' personal space or desire to be left alone. For me the mental fatigue comes mostly from having to be constantly aware of my carry-on luggage, which on transatlantic flights generally includes my computer equipment (one or two laptops plus at least one mass storage device) since it cannot safely be packed in checked luggage. Theft is always a worry with data equipment, but the real headaches come from maneuvering in and out of toilet stalls while minimizing the contact luggage, coats, etc. have with the floor around the toilet.
In the 10 years or so I was flying transatlantically at least once a year, there was only one flight where I nearly sat next to a Chatty Cathy. She was an older woman and the flight was from Chicago to London. I had my plane book in hand and when she started talking and saw I was reading my book, she decided to move one row forward, next to a somewhat younger woman travelling on a Pakistani passport. I could see her only through the narrow gap between the seats in front, but her head was bobbing up and down (the way some people's do when they talk) for the entirety of that eight-hour flight: that level of stamina is astonishing and I suspect it came largely from nervousness.
QuoteThe internet - where every complaint from the holiday/annual vacation-only travelers with no Pre Check, frequent flier bonuses, etc. gets aired out. Obviously if I ever needed to fly I wouldn't have any of those things that would help make the experience more pleasant. And as an introvert, the idea of any means of transit where I have to come into contact with other people will automatically be rated lower than driving as a given. Plus reading about all the TSA stuff is enough to consider the whole process humiliating (FYI, my threshold for that is likely to be lower than for most people).
There are some special reasons it is hellish to travel over the holidays. Fares are expensive, load factors are super close to 100%, terminals are quite congested, and the stakes and stress are quite high since a delay or cancellation often means missing family holiday festivities. Flying is much less stressful for leisure travellers who leave themselves free to fly midweek, when fares and load factors tend to be much lower.
I personally prefer to drive, but I wouldn't want to limit myself to that mode of transport. Aside from its putting destinations outside North America out of reach, "flyover" driving--the long-distance, high-speed driving you have to do along mostly familiar roads in order to reach the areas of scenic interest you want to see--tends to offer a much lower return in terms of satisfaction. When I travelled from Wichita to Seattle to visit an old friend, I had to scrape the barrel (and ask on here) for routes that were reasonably on the way that I hadn't already seen during previous trips. I didn't mind the four days it took to reach Seattle or the two days it took to get back to Wichita once I finished my sightseeing, since I had the leisure to take an extended West Coast vacation. However, the next time I make a trip for the express purpose of seeing my friend in Seattle, I suspect it will be by air.
Interesting thing about the pat-down... the "enhanced" part came about at the same time the body scanners did. Basically, it was
specifically designed to reduce the number of people who opted out of the body scanners.
I haven't had that issue with movie theaters in the times I've gone, but that's always been with my parents, and always during less crowded times. Having a buffer of empty seats helps, as does something to make it feel less like I'm under a microscope. Part of my issue is that I'm very self conscious - the other is that my emotions are so deep that I can't 100% ignore other people; I'm always in tune, at least a little bit.
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2014, 01:41:43 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
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.
How is that even legal? I thought being able to compare prices was one of the central tenants of the free market capitalist system we claim to love!
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.
Long story short; no front money for 3rd-party ticket sales, no advertisement nor sale of tickets via said-3rd-party. It's as simple as that and 100% perfectly legal.
Quote from: roadman on December 16, 2014, 10:36:48 AM
So I have to pay to check a bag - which is a necessity for travel. But the 800 channels of crappy TV at the seats is free - although it is not a necessity for travel. Am I the only one who sees something wrong here.
I hear you on that one. However, (playing devil's advocate for one moment) there have been times I've flown (mostly for short, weekend trips) where I have traveled with just a carry-on bag... even before the baggage fee crap started.
A few years back when Sen. Schumer (D-NY) grilled the CEO of Sprit Airlines for charging for the use of their overhead bins; the CEO's reply to the Senator was that carry-ons were not essential. If one can stuff their carry-on underneath the seat in front of them; then it's not subject to a fee.
Along with Spirit; Allegiant and even Frontier* now charge for using the overhead bins to store carry-ons
in addition to charging for checked luggage.
*IIRC, if one books a Frontier flight directly from their website; they're not charged a fee for using the overhead bins.
FYI, Airline fee cheat sheet updated as of 9/20/14 (http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/3801089/airline-baggage-fees-chart/)
On the subject of baggage fees; a recent reports state that airlines have collected $
Billions in fees (including the much-hated checked bag charge). It's also worth noting that, unlike ticket fares which are taxed (roughly $30-35 total for a domestic round-trip ticket); fees are
not taxed.
If it's discovered that the airlines are making a higher percentage of money on fees than they are on actual airfares; the IRS & Congress will certainly take notice.
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2014, 01:41:43 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
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.
How is that even legal? I thought being able to compare prices was one of the central tenants of the free market capitalist system we claim to love!
Delta, United, et. al. publish their fares through various GDS systems. These systems let travel agents browse fares and routes and allow them to book plane tickets directly. Expedia, Travelocity, and other travel websites tie into the GDS systems to list and sell tickets. Southwest decided not to tie into a GDS. They only sell tickets directly. Because the fares are only published on their website and the only avenue for buying a ticket is through their website or over the phone, they aren't listed on the big travel websites.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2014, 01:41:43 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
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.
How is that even legal? I thought being able to compare prices was one of the central tenants of the free market capitalist system we claim to love!
RealJD was referring to a quick comparison, which is what Expedia, Orbitz, etc offers. You are certainly welcome to make your own comparisons. Even when one of the oblique websites shows fares, it's wise to check the fares on the actual airline's website, where you may find a better deal.
But no one is required to post their prices on some 3rd party website, regardless of what they have available to sell.
Quote from: briantroutman on December 15, 2014, 08:01:48 PM
My understanding is that the TSA is under some kind of congressional pressure to pass a certain minimum percentage of passengers through Pre Check lines. And since the number of travelers voluntarily signing up for Pre hasn't met expectations, they've been diverting regular passengers into Pre. My impression is that this practice has declined somewhat, because it hasn't been an issue in any of my October or November flights.
Not sure if it's declined at all. At least my last 2 or 3 times flying (once in late November, once in early September for sure), this has happened to me, maybe more. It catches me off guard sometimes. I specifically note that my ticket doesn't say Pre-Check on it (I've had that once though, not sure how; all the same airline and I use the same frequent flier account every time), and then the TSA agent just points and says "go over there", sometimes not even mentioning that it's a Pre-Check line. I need to pay extra attention when I go through security now to see which type of line I'm in.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 16, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2014, 01:41:43 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
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.
How is that even legal? I thought being able to compare prices was one of the central tenants of the free market capitalist system we claim to love!
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.
Long story short; no front money for 3rd-party ticket sales, no advertisement nor sale of tickets via said-3rd-party. It's as simple as that and 100% perfectly legal.
Also, they're doing absolutely nothing to stop you from comparison shopping. You still have every right to go to their site, then Alaska's site, then someone else's site, then Orbitz, and come back to whoever has the best deal. Orbitz and similar sites may be the easiest way to comparison shop. They're not necessarily the best, and certainly not the only.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 16, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
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.
Quote from: realjd on December 16, 2014, 03:06:33 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:43:56 PM
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?
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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. :-)
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:43:56 PM
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.
Quote from: realjd on December 18, 2014, 03:16:29 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:43:56 PMSo 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.
Quote from: realjd on December 18, 2014, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:43:56 PM
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".
Quote from: realjd on December 18, 2014, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:43:56 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 18, 2014, 03:54:25 PM
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.
Quote from: corco on December 18, 2014, 05:05:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 18, 2014, 05:45:09 PM
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!
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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).
Quote from: briantroutman on December 18, 2014, 06:55:23 PM
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.
Quote from: kkt on December 19, 2014, 01:46:59 AM
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 (http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/complete/ua66/ua66-24.jpg) 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.)
Quote from: briantroutman on December 19, 2014, 03:36:49 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 19, 2014, 01:46:59 AM
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 (http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/complete/ua66/ua66-24.jpg) 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.
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.
Quote from: kkt on December 19, 2014, 04:16:09 PM
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 (http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/list.htm), 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
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.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 21, 2014, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2014, 11:52:54 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
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?
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?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 27, 2014, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2014, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 27, 2014, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
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.
Any practical suggestions for today, since our political system isn't about to undergo upheaval?
While I am typically a strong advocate of personal liberties, for air travel, we need to give up a little bit of freedom to ensure our security. Unlike other forms of travel, if your plane crashes, you'll probably die. There is no escape from an aircraft while it is in the air. If somebody gets in there with a weapon and decides to use it, you're a sitting duck. The fatalities per major incident rate for air travel is sky high because of this. While a train or bus crash doesn't make the news unless people die, every plane crash makes national (if not international) news and a significant amount result in at least one death.
Metal detectors are great, but they can only sense metallic objects. It won't find a ceramic knife, certain IEDs, or other nonmetallic substances. An enhanced patdown won't necessarily catch everything. Remember how drugs are often smuggled into this country inside various body cavities. That's where the body scanners come in handy. You're not hiding anything if you're going through one of those. While I cringe at the thought of somebody possibly distributing pornographic images of millions of travelers, it's probably better than dying on a plane.
Given my background, I'm probably a little more willing to go through security. Family members have held high-level government positions well before 9/11 and you needed a pretty thorough security screening to get into certain sensitive facilities. A week after 9/11, 7 year old me got an enhanced patdown and wanding at the local Six Flags park along with everyone else entering the park. That's just life when people are made aware of security threats that were previously overlooked.
Granted, the time required to pass through security does dissuade me from flying unless the distance is long and the price is significantly less than taking the train or driving. It is quite a pain and I don't understand why they even have a few of the current regulations. Heck, in 2 weeks I'll be flying to DC not having flown in over 4 years. I'd rather not fly, but my round trip airfare is 30% less than what it would cost to park at my hotel.
The one thing making us safer after 9/11 didn't even involve the government at all: it involved cultural perception. Before 9/11, if someone hijacked a plane, people thought they would be hostages and would lie low and await rescue. Now, if someone tries to hijack the plane, they'll have 20 passengers restraining them before they can even point their weapon at anything. Pretty much every failed air attack since 9/11 has failed in this manner. The national security state, however, has mysteriously managed to foil nothing except the smuggling of salad dressing and cigarette lighters.
We're far too focused on "things". As long as we continue to go after "things", we'll always be a step behind. Ideally, we'd combat terrorism by moulding our national behavior such that nobody would ever want to attack us. It works great for countries like New Zealand. Failing that, we could at least get a competent security agency that would do things like follow up on the tip from the father of the underwear bomber. The buffoons at the CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, etc. need to be put out to pasture. Note that this WOULD required a complete overhaul of the security clearance system to deal with our inter-connected world. Currently, if a suspect crosses an international border, nobody can track it because everything is so compartmentalized.
The problem is that we do this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPljGWGNt4) and this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XrE0FSQv4) while saying this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmoeZHnOJKA).
Being serious, the EU has a linked system. I think that the US and Canada should link (and open the borders), but given the state of stuff in Arizona, I don't see that happening any time soon and the problem will only get worse.
we have an interconnected system. It's called NEXUS and SENTRI.
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2014, 10:32:37 PM
The one thing making us safer after 9/11 didn't even involve the government at all: it involved cultural perception. Before 9/11, if someone hijacked a plane, people thought they would be hostages and would lie low and await rescue. Now, if someone tries to hijack the plane, they'll have 20 passengers restraining them before they can even point their weapon at anything. Pretty much every failed air attack since 9/11 has failed in this manner. The national security state, however, has mysteriously managed to foil nothing except the smuggling of salad dressing and cigarette lighters
That combined proper deadbolt locks on cockpit doors and simple changes like flight attendants blocking the aisle with the beverage cart before the cockpit door is opened to serve the pilots or let them out to use the toilet. A plane can no longer be used as a weapon, and if someone wants to destroy a single plane, there have to be better ways to do it that don't require being onboard.
Quote from: dfwmapper on December 28, 2014, 02:09:58 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2014, 10:32:37 PM
The one thing making us safer after 9/11 didn't even involve the government at all: it involved cultural perception. Before 9/11, if someone hijacked a plane, people thought they would be hostages and would lie low and await rescue. Now, if someone tries to hijack the plane, they'll have 20 passengers restraining them before they can even point their weapon at anything. Pretty much every failed air attack since 9/11 has failed in this manner. The national security state, however, has mysteriously managed to foil nothing except the smuggling of salad dressing and cigarette lighters
That combined proper deadbolt locks on cockpit doors and simple changes like flight attendants blocking the aisle with the beverage cart before the cockpit door is opened to serve the pilots or let them out to use the toilet. A plane can no longer be used as a weapon, and if someone wants to destroy a single plane, there have to be better ways to do it that don't require being onboard.
I don't think it's actually gotten to the point where those measures have actually been used. Good that we have them, though.
Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has tried to bomb the line going in to security. Of course, if someone did, the TSA would probably create a second checkpoint that you have to clear before you can try to clear security. :spin:
I also imagine the mass revolt against the TSA would gain steam after the obvious measures that would be added after the first person tries a rectal bomb.
Quote from: vdeane on December 28, 2014, 10:56:36 AM
Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has tried to bomb the line going in to security. Of course, if someone did, the TSA would probably create a second checkpoint that you have to clear before you can try to clear security. :spin:
Don't worry, we can blame Call of Duty:
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 27, 2014, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
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?
The Israelis do not engage in such crap at Ben Gurion Airport, and have a pretty good record in such matters. As does El Al Airlines.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2014, 06:02:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 27, 2014, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
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?
The Israelis do not engage in such crap at Ben Gurion Airport, and have a pretty good record in such matters. As does El Al Airlines.
What is the practical application of whatever they do differently to a country forty times their size?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2014, 06:02:07 PMThe Israelis do not engage in such crap at Ben Gurion Airport, and have a pretty good record in such matters. As does El Al Airlines.
A few years ago at an El Al ticket counter at LAX; one gunman found out the hard way that you don't screw around with El Al even on the public side of an airport in the U.S.