5 ms·

How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their

by jsnell 11y ago

How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports, is a laughable idea.

freehunter 11y ago
This is one of the reasons I love the Midwest and living in smaller cities. My airport is international and flies just about anywhere you want to go, but 90% of the time I walk up to an empty line and I'm told "we don't have a precheck lane open, just walk on through". As a consultant, I fly the busiest times (monday and thursday), but the only trouble I've ever had was in Denver where I waited almost an hour and a half in a security line before I got my precheck approval.
- buzzdenver 11y ago
  Most people do not realize, but Denver is a very busy airport. It has dropped from it's #10 worldwide ranking in 2010 to #19, but it's still #6 in the US and was just last year overtaken by JFK. Short lines are nice, but it's also not bad the have direct flights to Europe and many US cities, and pretty low ticket prices.
- geerlingguy 11y ago
  With the exception of Chicago, I agree. St. Louis, Indianapolis, KC, and many other airports have direct flights to most parts of the US (or connect through Chicago almost anywhere in the world), and I've never waited more than 20 minutes in the TSA lines. Due to the frequency of travel, I do have Pre-Check, but I hate that I had to pay extra money to get what I think should be the normal experience for all domestic travelers.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    If 0 people had signed up for Pre-Check it would get shut down. It's nicely described by the Prisoner's dilemma.
    - morgante 11y ago
      No, it's not a Prisoner's Dilemma. If there were no Pre-Check, normal lines would still be long—they'd just be slightly shorter. I'd much rather pay for dramatically shorter lines than to save that money and have slightly shorter lines in normal security.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    KC is a great get-out-and-go airport but it's terrible airport to have a layover in. It was designed to be the most efficient airport in the country in the era before security screenings were a normal thing. Pre-9/11 airport security put somewhat of a damper on this, but it was made many times worse when the TSA came into being and implemented the concept of "sterile areas". Now, if you get a layover in KC, you're literally stuck in a glass box with five gates, a juice cart, and a bathroom for its entirety (unless you wish to dirty yourself with the non-sterile area and go through security again).
  - ringwalt 11y ago
    Does any midwest airport outside of Chicago actually fly "anywhere you want to go", internationally?
    - pklausler 11y ago
      Sure: MSP.
    - GurnB 11y ago
      This. I don't think you can fly direct out of IND to anywhere without going through ORD. And if I had to guess, to fly from IND to ORD I bet you have to route through DET. Obviously this is sarcasm but it is very frustrating. It is easier to just drive to ORD and fly from there. By the time you get to IND x number of hours before your 45min flight and then land & change planes in ORD, it is just easier to start in ORD.
harperlee 11y ago
If everyone comes a minute before departure, all lose the flight, whereas if everyone comes 24 hours earlier, none will miss the flight, so there is obviously a change. Plus you get people to sit in a huge store without any means to leave. So the airport doesn't have a throughput problem! They don't have a problem at all, as there is also no clear alternative - normally there is only 1 airport to choose from. So people need to take whatever service quality said airport offers. EDIT: It would be good both for this conversation and HN in general if the downvotes were explained. The parent states several things that in my opinion are not completely true (such as all people arriving earlier don't having effect on anything, or the need to have absolutely no queues at some times for throughput to be improved, or that that never happens) and pointing some things out doesn't seem to me like a punishable action, but if it is, some explanation would be good. In particular, my experience with for example the Frankfurt airport is that you get lots of security lines but more than half are closed, with up to 8 employees per line. They require that no one starts unpacking and preparing things until the area is cleared. They request a chemicals test if the metal detector jumps on you (?). They do random things like what vincefutr23 points out in another comment: > still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan The effect of all this is that you get more "latency" than "throughput" problems, as each particular line clogs a lot, and you could open more lines if you wished, and it takes you a lot of time to be serviced even with few people. But then again: it only is the problem of the airport if they are affected by it - but they don't seem very keen on improving it.
- raldi 11y ago
  The airport can't hold that many people.
  - tgb 11y ago
    The number of people in the security line is dependent only upon the rate at which they are processed and the total number arriving for their flights, doesn't depend upon how early people get there. And once people get through the lines, there's no change from before so there'd be no large increase in how many people are in the waiting areas. (Except for the increase in uncertainty in how long the lines will take, that will cause some extra people in the waiting areas. I see no reason to expect this to be a large enough effect to be problematic.)
buzzdenver 11y ago
Nobody said that it has any effect on throughput. It only solves the problem of missing your flight.
peterwwillis 11y ago
They're trying to transfer a large file by 3:00 PM. They used to have an ISDN line, and now they have a 56k modem. If they used to be able to transfer it starting at 2:00 PM, now they'll start the process at 1:00 PM, and it should still get done. You trade bandwidth for time. Show up earlier, and if they process everyone earlier, everyone will get through in time. Of course, this does not help you get to your connection on time.
wutbrodo 11y ago
> The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports, is a laughable idea. Shrug, I've seen this plenty over the course of my life in the US, and I've only ever really flown big-city airports. It's not ubiquitous, but it's not like, super-rare or anything.

by jsnell 11y ago

freehunter 11y ago

This is one of the reasons I love the Midwest and living in smaller cities. My airport is international and flies just about anywhere you want to go, but 90% of the time I walk up to an empty line and I'm told "we don't have a precheck lane open, just walk on through". As a consultant, I fly the busiest times (monday and thursday), but the only trouble I've ever had was in Denver where I waited almost an hour and a half in a security line before I got my precheck approval.

buzzdenver 11y ago
Most people do not realize, but Denver is a very busy airport. It has dropped from it's #10 worldwide ranking in 2010 to #19, but it's still #6 in the US and was just last year overtaken by JFK. Short lines are nice, but it's also not bad the have direct flights to Europe and many US cities, and pretty low ticket prices.
geerlingguy 11y ago
With the exception of Chicago, I agree. St. Louis, Indianapolis, KC, and many other airports have direct flights to most parts of the US (or connect through Chicago almost anywhere in the world), and I've never waited more than 20 minutes in the TSA lines. Due to the frequency of travel, I do have Pre-Check, but I hate that I had to pay extra money to get what I think should be the normal experience for all domestic travelers.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  If 0 people had signed up for Pre-Check it would get shut down. It's nicely described by the Prisoner's dilemma.
  - morgante 11y ago
    No, it's not a Prisoner's Dilemma. If there were no Pre-Check, normal lines would still be long—they'd just be slightly shorter. I'd much rather pay for dramatically shorter lines than to save that money and have slightly shorter lines in normal security.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  KC is a great get-out-and-go airport but it's terrible airport to have a layover in. It was designed to be the most efficient airport in the country in the era before security screenings were a normal thing. Pre-9/11 airport security put somewhat of a damper on this, but it was made many times worse when the TSA came into being and implemented the concept of "sterile areas". Now, if you get a layover in KC, you're literally stuck in a glass box with five gates, a juice cart, and a bathroom for its entirety (unless you wish to dirty yourself with the non-sterile area and go through security again).
- ringwalt 11y ago
  Does any midwest airport outside of Chicago actually fly "anywhere you want to go", internationally?
  - pklausler 11y ago
    Sure: MSP.
  - GurnB 11y ago
    This. I don't think you can fly direct out of IND to anywhere without going through ORD. And if I had to guess, to fly from IND to ORD I bet you have to route through DET. Obviously this is sarcasm but it is very frustrating. It is easier to just drive to ORD and fly from there. By the time you get to IND x number of hours before your 45min flight and then land & change planes in ORD, it is just easier to start in ORD.

harperlee 11y ago

If everyone comes a minute before departure, all lose the flight, whereas if everyone comes 24 hours earlier, none will miss the flight, so there is obviously a change. Plus you get people to sit in a huge store without any means to leave. So the airport doesn't have a throughput problem! They don't have a problem at all, as there is also no clear alternative - normally there is only 1 airport to choose from. So people need to take whatever service quality said airport offers. EDIT: It would be good both for this conversation and HN in general if the downvotes were explained. The parent states several things that in my opinion are not completely true (such as all people arriving earlier don't having effect on anything, or the need to have absolutely no queues at some times for throughput to be improved, or that that never happens) and pointing some things out doesn't seem to me like a punishable action, but if it is, some explanation would be good. In particular, my experience with for example the Frankfurt airport is that you get lots of security lines but more than half are closed, with up to 8 employees per line. They require that no one starts unpacking and preparing things until the area is cleared. They request a chemicals test if the metal detector jumps on you (?). They do random things like what vincefutr23 points out in another comment: > still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan The effect of all this is that you get more "latency" than "throughput" problems, as each particular line clogs a lot, and you could open more lines if you wished, and it takes you a lot of time to be serviced even with few people. But then again: it only is the problem of the airport if they are affected by it - but they don't seem very keen on improving it.

raldi 11y ago
The airport can't hold that many people.
- tgb 11y ago
  The number of people in the security line is dependent only upon the rate at which they are processed and the total number arriving for their flights, doesn't depend upon how early people get there. And once people get through the lines, there's no change from before so there'd be no large increase in how many people are in the waiting areas. (Except for the increase in uncertainty in how long the lines will take, that will cause some extra people in the waiting areas. I see no reason to expect this to be a large enough effect to be problematic.)

buzzdenver 11y ago

Nobody said that it has any effect on throughput. It only solves the problem of missing your flight.

peterwwillis 11y ago

They're trying to transfer a large file by 3:00 PM. They used to have an ISDN line, and now they have a 56k modem. If they used to be able to transfer it starting at 2:00 PM, now they'll start the process at 1:00 PM, and it should still get done. You trade bandwidth for time. Show up earlier, and if they process everyone earlier, everyone will get through in time. Of course, this does not help you get to your connection on time.

wutbrodo 11y ago

> The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports, is a laughable idea. Shrug, I've seen this plenty over the course of my life in the US, and I've only ever really flown big-city airports. It's not ubiquitous, but it's not like, super-rare or anything.