__________ is/are overrated.

[Rothman]

To be fair, before cell phones, my father hated paying for parking at the airport, so he would circle around.  Didn't have anything to do with security.

[kkt]

I hated circling around, so I would sit somewhere near the airport but not in it while waiting for the person I was picking up to call or text that they were at the curb.  Or pay a few $ and park for half an hour and meet them at the baggage claim.  When my kid was under 18 and flying unaccompanied we had to do a signoff with a flight attendant.  I think that was at the airline's ticket counter.

[Rothman]

I hated circling around, so I would sit somewhere near the airport but not in it while waiting for the person I was picking up to call or text that they were at the curb.  Or pay a few $ and park for half an hour and meet them at the baggage claim.  When my kid was under 18 and flying unaccompanied we had to do a signoff with a flight attendant.  I think that was at the airline's ticket counter.

Like I said, before cell phones...it's not like I could call my father when he was in the car...

Kids these days...

[jeffandnicole]

I'm very fortunate - I live 20 minutes from PHL.  If someone is arriving that I need to pick up, I tell them to text me when they land.  By the time I get there, they're usually just getting to the curb. 

And in all the wrongs of PHL, the one thing they did right was their cell phone lot.  It's on an abandoned segment of 291 East, in which traffic goes westward with angled or parallel parking options, and has easy access directly into the arrivals roadway.  (The Uber/Lyft driver waiting area is also on an abandoned segment of 291 East as well.)

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

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

Before 9/11, people could wait a bit longer at the curb waiting for the person they were picking up. But it also caused some delays as people were clogging up arrival roadways. 

Besides, we're dealing with a general population that'll spend 15 minutes in a drive-thru line rather than 5 minutes of getting out of their car and going inside.  Restaurants and other places are used to dealing with people not wanting to get out of their cars.  Airports are similar.  And unlike most restaurants, at most airports you'll need to pay to park the car and go inside.

[Rothman]

Before 9/11, people could wait a bit longer at the curb waiting for the person they were picking up. But it also caused some delays as people were clogging up arrival roadways. 

Depended on the airport.  At BDL (Bradley Int'l/Hartford/Springfield), they had police or troopers there enforcing the no parking rule at the drop-off site quite strictly long before 9/11.

[1995hoo]

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

But part of the point is that some people don't want to pay to park to meet someone. They want to go to the airport and pick up their friend or family member, but having them circle the airport, or park on a curb to wait, just contributes to congestion. The theory is that if the arriving passenger calls either when the plane pulls up to the gate, after deplaning, or after claiming checked bags (for people who do so), the person driving can then pull around to the terminal more or less around the time when the arriving passenger comes outside. An alternate solution—one in use at Reagan Airport after they closed the (minuscule) cell phone lot due to construction—is to allow some small amount of free parking, say half an hour.



One reason for not having to change your phone's display at security these days may well be that a majority of passengers have their boarding passes on their phones, so they change the display to show the boarding pass anyway.

[kphoger]

... the liquids ban means that I can't simply take my usual shampoo, conditioner, contact lens solution, toothpaste, or moisturizer.

I don't understand this.  Why can't you just buy little travel-sized squeeze bottles?  They're super cheap.  Just put however much you need in those for air travel.  (They're also good for camping trips.)

[Rothman]

I'm annoyed that I can't put a 5 ounce bottle of picaridin in my carry-on...

[JayhawkCO]

... the liquids ban means that I can't simply take my usual shampoo, conditioner, contact lens solution, toothpaste, or moisturizer.

I don't understand this.  Why can't you just buy little travel-sized squeeze bottles?  They're super cheap.  Just put however much you need in those for air travel.  (They're also good for camping trips.)

Toothpaste is a little harder. I just switch brands for however long my vacation is. Not that big of a deal.

[kphoger]

Toothpaste is a little harder. I just switch brands for however long my vacation is. Not that big of a deal.

Same.  I don't really care what toothpaste I use in the short term.

[jeffandnicole]

... the liquids ban means that I can't simply take my usual shampoo, conditioner, contact lens solution, toothpaste, or moisturizer.

I don't understand this.  Why can't you just buy little travel-sized squeeze bottles?  They're super cheap.  Just put however much you need in those for air travel.  (They're also good for camping trips.)

Toothpaste is a little harder. I just switch brands for however long my vacation is. Not that big of a deal.

I use Sensodyne, and I can find that in travel size tubes. Just ask the dentist next time for a few extra sample sizes, especially if they carry what you use.

[formulanone]

... the liquids ban means that I can't simply take my usual shampoo, conditioner, contact lens solution, toothpaste, or moisturizer.

I don't understand this.  Why can't you just buy little travel-sized squeeze bottles?  They're super cheap.  Just put however much you need in those for air travel.  (They're also good for camping trips.)

Toothpaste is a little harder. I just switch brands for however long my vacation is. Not that big of a deal.

I use Sensodyne, and I can find that in travel size tubes. Just ask the dentist next time for a few extra sample sizes, especially if they carry what you use.

I've noticed an annoying trend of toothpaste either available in overpriced 1 ounce tubes and rational prices for 5 ounce tubes. The perfect size tubes of 3oz / 100g  now seems to be reserved for the whitening stuff which costs double (and has no discernible difference).

[Duke87]

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

Yeah this is a way in which the liquids policy is sexist. I just use the shampoo hotels provide when I'm away from home, and I have no use for conditioner or moisturizer. My wife is checking a bag or having to decant her various toiletry gels into 3 oz containers.

Toothpaste, meanwhile, a free tube of it that's 3 oz or less is handed out at every dentist visit so we're set there.

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

But part of the point is that some people don't want to pay to park to meet someone. They want to go to the airport and pick up their friend or family member, but having them circle the airport, or park on a curb to wait, just contributes to congestion. The theory is that if the arriving passenger calls either when the plane pulls up to the gate, after deplaning, or after claiming checked bags (for people who do so), the person driving can then pull around to the terminal more or less around the time when the arriving passenger comes outside. An alternate solution—one in use at Reagan Airport after they closed the (minuscule) cell phone lot due to construction—is to allow some small amount of free parking, say half an hour.

Yeah this isn't a security paranoia thing. Sure, before 9/11 we'd park and go into the terminal to meet anyone we were picking up... but this was because since neither us nor them had a cellphone we didn't really have much choice - only way to meet up was to meet at a pre-agreed location.

Funny enough, we never met them at the gate... but since the people we were picking up were family arriving from Italy this wasn't an option anyway - when you arrive on an international flight you don't exit into the main area of the terminal, you're shunted directly to customs, and entering the customs screening area as someone not going through customs screening was already not allowed pre-9/11.


Nowadays, even if the ability to meet someone you're picking up at the gate were restored, I wouldn't because I'm not paying to park if I don't have to, nor would I care to walk all the way to the gate if I'm not flying anyway. Cellphone lot, therefore.

[webny99]

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

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

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

I agree that the US/Canada border is more of a hassle than it needs to be given the safe nature of the border and amicable relations between the two countries. It shouldn't have to involve such intense questioning, or necessarily even a checkpoint at all, when compared to the European Union, for example. However, I do think the difference in immigration policies between the two countries is vast, and a big part of the reason that will never happen.

So knowing that what we have now likely isn't going away anytime soon, it's all about the value one places on the hassle reduction. For me, it's easily worth $10 per year. Even if I were to only cross the border once or twice per year it would be worth $10 to me, and I cross much more often than that in non-pandemic times. And I don't see the price as cost-prohibitive. Much like a state park entrance fee, it needs to be enough to prevent everyone from using it, or it would become too popular and lose its value. At the same time, it's well worth the price to those that use it regularly.

  I'm guessing from your age that you probably see the post-9/11 security theater world as "normal" and "the way things are", since you're too young to have remembered how it used to be.

Undeniably. I was only 2 when 9/11 occurred.

[bugo]

Everyone has $78?

Yes, everyone that has $382 (average flight cost in the US) has $78.

Talk about being privileged and out of touch. $80 dollars is a lot of money for some of us. Don't be so tone deaf and rude. I see that you're young, so you might not have ever struggled a day in your life, but I'm making assumptions.

[bugo]

Actually, I would hardly qualify as a frequent flyer. 8-10 times per year tops.My comments were directed towards those who fly more frequently than that and could get TSA if they choose, but prefer to complain about the hassle of airport travel.

You are privileged. I had a feeling.

So, this idea of "just pay extra to skip the lines" just seems like a sort of microclassism to me.  If you can afford to pay, you get to skip the line, despite most of everyone being able to pass a background check.  It is much more of a money-making scheme than anything related to transportation safety.

On one hand, point taken. On the other, I just don't get the affordability argument when it's 20% of the cost of a single flight for five years. A drop in the bucket of the airline industry as a whole.
[/quote]

It's a lot of money to a broke person. You can't even seem to grasp this. Try to have some empathy.

[vdeane]

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

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

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

I agree that the US/Canada border is more of a hassle than it needs to be given the safe nature of the border and amicable relations between the two countries. It shouldn't have to involve such intense questioning, or necessarily even a checkpoint at all, when compared to the European Union, for example. However, I do think the difference in immigration policies between the two countries is vast, and a big part of the reason that will never happen.

So knowing that what we have now likely isn't going away anytime soon, it's all about the value one places on the hassle reduction. For me, it's easily worth $10 per year. Even if I were to only cross the border once or twice per year it would be worth $10 to me, and I cross much more often than that in non-pandemic times. And I don't see the price as cost-prohibitive. Much like a state park entrance fee, it needs to be enough to prevent everyone from using it, or it would become too popular and lose its value. At the same time, it's well worth the price to those that use it regularly.

  I'm guessing from your age that you probably see the post-9/11 security theater world as "normal" and "the way things are", since you're too young to have remembered how it used to be.

Undeniably. I was only 2 when 9/11 occurred.

Yeah, I'm not thinking in "cost/crossing" so much as "why should I pay for what used to be free?" (I'm also still mad that Hulu paywalled their service, and only subscribed once they picked up The Orville).  Incidentally, for me it's three hours each way to the border, so the process is a bit of a hassle, and the fact that I only manage to cross once every several years would probably mean that applying would just be suspicious.

[bugo]

I prefer traveling by almost any other mode to traveling by air:  rail, bus, driving, even hitchhiking (although I haven't done that last one in years).
I prefer to be treated like a respectable member of society, not as a strange cross between convict and cattle.

Have you ridden a Greyhound in the last 20 years? I rode one in 2009, and they treated me like utter shit. A lot of shifty types ride the buses, which I guess is why they are rude, but they shouldn't be rude when you haven't done anything.

[webny99]

Yes, everyone that has $382 (average flight cost in the US) has $78.

Honestly, I find that rather condescending of you, to assume that anyone who can afford $382 can afford $460, plus the time off and gas money it might take to go and actually get TSA PreCheck in the first place.

I think you took that too... figuratively?

I meant it in a literal sense, as in, if someone has $382 they could choose to spend $304 on a flight and $78 on Pre-Check if they so chose to prioritize a hassle free security experience over a more expensive flight. And $382 is just an average, anyways. Plenty of flights can be had for less than $382, especially on shorter and more popular routes, as you noted yourself. But plenty of flights cost more than $382, too - so Pre-Check is still only about 25% of the cost of a single flight, on average. Yet it continues to benefit you on future flights, so if you took three flights, it would be only 7% of the total spent; if you took five flights (even if it was one per year for five years), it would only be 4% of the total spent, and so on. But obviously, a 25% "upcharge" is too much for most people to consider using it just once - it must be considered in the context of one's long-term travel patterns, not just a single flight.

The last time my wife and I flew anywhere together (sixteen years ago), it was because one of her relatives had died and we needed to get to Minnesota for the funeral.  No time to plan ahead, no time to save up.  In fact, she was eight or nine months pregnant, so any savings we might have had should be going toward the baby.  In such a situation, a $382 plane ticket could all but wipe out a newlywed couple's bank account.

$382 in 2007 is not $382 today. According to current estimates, $382 today would be about $260 in 2007, after accounting for inflation. Also, TSA Pre-Check did not exist in 2007, as it was established in 2013. But in such a situation, TSA Pre-Check likely wouldn't have been a priority for you anyways, since you didn't fly very much (is that safe to assume?) and were focused on saving for other, more important life priorities.

You must live a rather privileged life.

I won't bother taking offense to that, but no, no I don't. 

You and I must have very, very different ideas of what a privileged life is. While I have been privileged - not in the sense you're talking about, but in terms of personal enjoyment - to do a bit of traveling here and there, and a good deal of that has been by air (not by choice, because I'd choose to drive anywhere if I could), I have a bit of experience with airports and airplane travel, but I've never been on a flight for a purely recreational or vacation-based trip, have never left North America, and have only flown first-class twice (one was a free upgrade with airline points, and the other was... complicated, let's call it a surprise gift).

And while discussing financial situations isn't something I take any joy in because of how delicate it can be, I do happen to know a thing or two about my parents' situation when I was younger - I lived in a 1000 sq ft house on a busy street and was eligible for NSLP, for starters - and I also happen have been exposed, a time or two, to people that live an unquestionably privileged life, and have seen how their lifestyle compares to my own, so I can say with conviction that I definitely don't live a privileged life in any sense of the word.

You might as well say that someone who can afford a plane ticket doesn't need to be paid for PTO that day, because they can obviously stand to lose out on 8 hours' worth of $9.75/hour wages.

Not in the least. But someone who can afford a plane ticket can afford to put one penny per hour worked for five years towards TSA Pre-Check if they so chose to use their hard-earned money that way and if it aligns with their travel priorities. Or here in New York, just being diligent about returning your cans and bottles for five years would probably do the trick.

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

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

TSA pre-check is a must-have.

I still stand by this, by the way. TSA is a must-have if you want hassle-free security. It was, however, very dunderheaded of me to try to place that in the broader context of overrated vs. underrated, because of how readily that could be - and has been - taken out of context.

[webny99]

I'm making assumptions.

Yes. Yes, you are. Other points addressed above.

It's a lot of money to a broke person. You can't even seem to grasp this. Try to have some empathy.

I understand that $78 is a lot of money, but I do not understand the lack of contextual awareness on this issue. Flights cost a lot more than $78, so the $78 is only worth it if you're a semi-regular flyer. If you're not, then by all means, please don't throw $78 to the wind.

[webny99]

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

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

On a lighter note...  a plane isn't exactly the type of environment where that would be enjoyable. 

[J N Winkler]

I still stand by this, by the way. TSA [Pre-Check] is a must-have if you want hassle-free security. It was, however, very dunderheaded to try and place that in the broader context of overrated vs. underrated, because of how readily that could be - and has been - taken out of context.

I think the context of 8-10 plane journeys per year (round-trip?) is very important.  I can see TSA Pre-Check making sense for air travel that frequent, and if it is work-related, I can see an employer offering to pay the fee (and grant paid time off for the interview) to recruit or retain talented personnel.

However, that frequency puts you in about the 90th percentile among Americans (41% of whom hadn't travelled by air at all in the year previous to a 2019 survey).  It also tends to go with lifestyle adjustments, such as careful choice of carry-on luggage and pre-optimization of packing, that make it easier to accommodate time, space, and weight constraints when flying.

People who do not travel by air as frequently, or at all (I personally haven't flown anywhere since 2012), reasonably view TSA Pre-Check as an unnecessary expense.  They typically also consider the savings in hassle factor quite small compared to the extra effort involved in navigating the passenger air transport system as an infrequent flier.  And this is without getting into the equity concerns others have raised.

[mgk920]

... the liquids ban means that I can't simply take my usual shampoo, conditioner, contact lens solution, toothpaste, or moisturizer.

I don't understand this.  Why can't you just buy little travel-sized squeeze bottles?  They're super cheap.  Just put however much you need in those for air travel.  (They're also good for camping trips.)

Toothpaste is a little harder. I just switch brands for however long my vacation is. Not that big of a deal.

I use Sensodyne, and I can find that in travel size tubes. Just ask the dentist next time for a few extra sample sizes, especially if they carry what you use.

I've noticed an annoying trend of toothpaste either available in overpriced 1 ounce tubes and rational prices for 5 ounce tubes. The perfect size tubes of 3oz / 100g  now seems to be reserved for the whitening stuff which costs double (and has no discernible difference).

I mentioned my disdain for the 'new' sized toothpaste tubes in a post that I made in a different forvm in here a sew weeks ago, my thoughts on 'snrinkflation.  I had just bought a supply of a major brand of toothpaste and the tubes were about HALF the size that they were the last time, just over 100 g now v just over 230 g each last time. That grated me. GRRRrrr . . .

Mike

[Rothman]

I still stand by this, by the way. TSA [Pre-Check] is a must-have if you want hassle-free security. It was, however, very dunderheaded to try and place that in the broader context of overrated vs. underrated, because of how readily that could be - and has been - taken out of context.

I think the context of 8-10 plane journeys per year (round-trip?) is very important.  I can see TSA Pre-Check making sense for air travel that frequent, and if it is work-related, I can see an employer offering to pay the fee (and grant paid time off for the interview) to recruit or retain talented personnel.

However, that frequency puts you in about the 90th percentile among Americans (41% of whom hadn't travelled by air at all in the year previous to a 2019 survey).  It also tends to go with lifestyle adjustments, such as careful choice of carry-on luggage and pre-optimization of packing, that make it easier to accommodate time, space, and weight constraints when flying.

People who do not travel by air as frequently, or at all (I personally haven't flown anywhere since 2012), reasonably view TSA Pre-Check as an unnecessary expense.  They typically also consider the savings in hassle factor quite small compared to the extra effort involved in navigating the passenger air transport system as an infrequent flier.  And this is without getting into the equity concerns others have raised.

The conversation has now come full circle...maybe even a couple of times, with both sides making the same points.

Time to poll the audience to see who they agree with.

ETA: "The hassle of air travel is overrated because my employer pays me to fly much more often than the normal American adult and I have TSA Pre-Check like everyone else should" is also an interesting hot take...

[webny99]

I think the context of 8-10 plane journeys per year (round-trip?) is very important.

No, not round-trip, flights total, including the occasional trip with connections. Sorry for not making that important distinction clear or correcting it sooner. I've been on exactly six flights in 2023 and don't expect any more before the year is out. I don't recall how many in 2022 but I think it was less than that. The 8-10 guesstimate was on number of total flights per year and factored in a few years of heavier travel before the covid pandemic.

I can see TSA Pre-Check making sense for air travel that frequent, and if it is work-related, I can see an employer offering to pay the fee (and grant paid time off for the interview) to recruit or retain talented personnel.

Absolutely, that can and does occur, but that is not the case for me. While I have been on work-related flights, I can count them on one hand.

Time to poll the audience to see who they agree with.

Actually, I would be interested to know at what frequency of air travel people think TSA is worth it.. while understanding that can be a tricky question for people who don't fly much, or fly for work and didn't pay for it out of pocket.