8 ms·

TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I too

by two2two 10y ago

TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. At that point I realized that air travel is by far the worst traveling experience money can pay for. If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're subjected to currently.

pc86 10y ago
The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks." Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.
- ssmoot 10y ago
  My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA. Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.
  - pc86 10y ago
    1. GA is not limited to the rich. Once you're at about the median US income (or 1/3 of what an SV developer makes, give or take), it is within reach. Slightly more than that and it's starts approaching "affordable," especially as a hobby and not a means of transportation. 2. Money buys you things. By definition people with more money will not be burdened by the same things as those with less.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Private jet travel is probably _not_ within reach for the average SV developer.
      - pc86 10y ago
        I know the poster specifically mentioned a jet but GA in general is absolutely within reach. With a license it costs maybe $150/hr to fly a Cessna 172 (and you're usually only billed for time the engine's actually running).
        pavel_lishin 10y ago
        How much does it cost to get a license? Can a Cessna 172 take me and my wife and child across the country to New York? Is parking a plane there free? "Especially as a hobby" has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Horseback riding is also affordable as a hobby, but nobody's bringing it up in a thread about the TSA because it has just as much relevance.
        charlesz 10y ago
        It can range anywhere from $6,000 to $15,000 (at the extremely high end) to get your PPL. Ramp fees vary.. Usually free if you buy 10 gallons of gas while you're there, otherwise $5-$15 per day. Can a Cessna 172 get you to New York? Sure, if you have the time. It'll be a long and monotonous flight though. Now, with all of that said, your point still stands. GA flying is a hobby and almost always more expensive than hopping on an airline.
        ssmoot 10y ago
        That's not really a good comparison. You might as well say driving is within reach for most people. You can drive at 70MPH. Windspeed doesn't impact you. The Cesna will cruise at ~140MPH. Windspeed might delay your arrival to the point that it's much faster to drive for shorter trips though. The jet will do 530MPH. Maybe the Cesna makes sense if there's no reasonably direct route by freeway. Or you're island hopping. It seems like a fairly small window where chartering a Cesna makes sense though (IMO). You can't transport a family of 4 with luggage. It'll be more expensive than the (commercial, not private) Jet, and take about 4 times longer. For every 1-1/2 hours of Jet travel, you'll have to refuel the Cesna as well. And if you though economy class on a commercial Jet was uncomfortable you're in for a rude awakening as well. ;-)
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Private jets are typically much smaller and have a correspondingly lower potential for mayhem. Yes, there's overlap, there are small airliners and some big private jets, but overall the risk is different, so there's no reason to expect the security measures to be the same.
    - ssmoot 10y ago
      The Falcon 2000 she flew on this morning is about 1/3 the weight and fuel load of the SWA 737 she might have otherwise. I'm not sure what's unreasonable about the comparison. If the TSA were actually necessary, it would seem like a huge gap in security to allow just anyone with the cash to charter a few private jets around the country.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        And that 737 is in turn about 1/3rd the weight and fuel load of the 767s that crashed into the World Trade Center. That's about a factor of 10 difference in kinetic and chemical energy from that Falcon 2000. If 9/11 had been carried out with Falcon 2000s we'd be talking about good the repairs look and how you can barely tell where the holes were on the WTC towers. I'm not calling the comparison unreasonable, I'm simply saying that the two are not the same, so it's perfectly reasonable for the security to be different too.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    I'll take "Common Carriers" for $400 , Alex. Just holding GenAv to common carrier standards for a sense of a level playing field seems silly to me. Worse is still worse.
CheckHook 10y ago
> iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. Most airlines provide the same digital boarding passes, I often travel with my pass added to Apple Wallet. > If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're subjected to currently. The problem here is that it's not just "your own risk" if that plane is directed at a populated area.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Directed by whom? There is no conceivable threat that would make a pilot agree to fly their plane into a building, and reinforced cockpit doors make it implausible to enter the cockpit without damaging the airplane past the point of flying - and passengers wouldn't stand for it anyway. It's a crap comparison, anyway - the TSA is better at finding toys than they are at finding bombs and weapons. Dogs and x-ray detectors could do just as well, and "alternative airports" could choose to have those.
  - jlewallen 10y ago
    > and passengers wouldn't stand for it anyway. This. We live in a different world now. I find it very difficult to imagine a plane full of people not standing up together to take down a threat.
mikeash 10y ago
I like the idea of an "at your own risk" option, but it'll never happen. Since 9/11, a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground (or at least in tall buildings), not just passengers. We can certainly debate whether that's necessary or useful (I'd argue that we could do far less than we currently do), but I don't think you'll ever get the public to agree to allowing airline flights with no security screening, even if you can convince everyone to take a libertarian approach to it.
- orblivion 10y ago
  To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That's far from guaranteed to work. And are you going to be paying for the F-16s on hot standby around the country?
    - joering2 10y ago
      Unless you don't live in USA or you don't pay your taxes, you already pay for it -- a.k.a Norad. Besides, since 911 the doors of plane cockpits are almost like a bank vault.
      - peppaz 10y ago
        Yes, even to the point of locking out the co-pilot for a suicide mission. :(
        protomyth 10y ago
        Europe didn't (doesn't?) have the 2 person rule like the US does.
    - s_m_t 10y ago
rhino369 10y ago
We have "at your own risk" airtravel in the form of private and chartered flights. There aren't enough people ready and willing to take that risk to make it a competitive business model for airlines. They are a business that only works at massive scale due to extreme competition on price.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Some of it isn't pure price competition; it's also actual economy of scale, especially with respect to financing of fleets.
- hammock 10y ago
  It's regulations in large part that draw the line between chartered flights and heavily regulated common carrier flights preventing better air travel from growing.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Independent of the security theater problem, we (collectively) beat the air travel system like a rented mule.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Do we? Because I feel like the airlines beat passengers like pieces of cattle. I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    When I was a kid there was no security. My Mom and Dad would make us put on a tie to go get somebody at the airport. And if you could afford it, they called you part of "the jet set." I bet this - where more people can use air travel - is better. It's just not special any more. UX is a secondary consideration.
cloudjacker 10y ago
I arrive at the airport in a Lyft. I walk up to the security checkpoint checkpoint, where I show the agent my phone. They see my boarding pass with the green checkmark and send me to the empty TSA Pre line. I walk through the metal detector with no adjustments to my attire. I am at the gate in 5 minutes. I like how trains basically let you show up last minute, and a 3 hour train ride actually means a 3 hour train ride, compared to airport, checkpoints and boarding time, possibly waiting on the runway, and air time. But you really just need to upgrade your travel accommodations to make your airport experience more seamless.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Agree. My $100 Global Entry (includes TSA Pre) fee is my hedge against the American public's apathy towards the TSA.
  - ihsw 10y ago
    It's not just the TSA they are apathetic towards -- it is all government activities.
  - sosborn 10y ago
    > My $100 Global Entry (includes TSA Pre) fee is my hedge against the American public's apathy towards the TSA. I don't blame you for paying that fee, but doesn't that just feed the monster?
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      Starving the monster doesn't work. Besides, "anti-TSA" is painting with too broad a brush. Air Marshals are part of the TSA, as are a myriad of other useful agencies. Its really just the pre-screen and invasive checks that need to stop. I think we all can agree that a dedicated force of Air Marshals is a good idea, right? As is the "intelligence" unit who is looking for active threats vs Airports.
      - Amorymeltzer 10y ago
cloudjacker 10y ago
It is funny that the article is about people like you. > there's other evidence that 9/11 led to an increase in driving, which cost at least a thousand lives
geophile 10y ago
A term I have coined: "TSA Radius" -- the distance below which you would rather drive than fly. For me this is currently about 600 miles, but may increase with the news about spectacularly long security lines.
ams6110 10y ago
I assume you didn't take Amtrak? My last straw with them was arriving at my destination nearly 24 hours late, after two separate breakdowns, and an accident involving a car at a crossing.
kazinator 10y ago
> If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s ... ... that airport and flights emanating from it would be perfectly safe! Why? Because, like everyone, terrorists, too, would love this airport so much, they wouldn't want to do anything to prevent it from operating.
noonespecial 10y ago
Sounds like there's a fascinating differential equation in there somewhere. The TSA uses as much money as possible and provides as little service as it can get away with because it has essentially zero accountability. The wait times and hassle increase until its easier just to drive so people fly less, reducing wait time, allowing the TSA to do even less brining wait times back up... The whole system balances at some convergence point. A really sucky convergence point.

by two2two 10y ago

pc86 10y ago

The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks." Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.

ssmoot 10y ago
My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA. Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.
- pc86 10y ago
  1. GA is not limited to the rich. Once you're at about the median US income (or 1/3 of what an SV developer makes, give or take), it is within reach. Slightly more than that and it's starts approaching "affordable," especially as a hobby and not a means of transportation. 2. Money buys you things. By definition people with more money will not be burdened by the same things as those with less.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Private jet travel is probably _not_ within reach for the average SV developer.
    - pc86 10y ago
      I know the poster specifically mentioned a jet but GA in general is absolutely within reach. With a license it costs maybe $150/hr to fly a Cessna 172 (and you're usually only billed for time the engine's actually running).
      - pavel_lishin 10y ago
        How much does it cost to get a license? Can a Cessna 172 take me and my wife and child across the country to New York? Is parking a plane there free? "Especially as a hobby" has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Horseback riding is also affordable as a hobby, but nobody's bringing it up in a thread about the TSA because it has just as much relevance.
        charlesz 10y ago
        It can range anywhere from $6,000 to $15,000 (at the extremely high end) to get your PPL. Ramp fees vary.. Usually free if you buy 10 gallons of gas while you're there, otherwise $5-$15 per day. Can a Cessna 172 get you to New York? Sure, if you have the time. It'll be a long and monotonous flight though. Now, with all of that said, your point still stands. GA flying is a hobby and almost always more expensive than hopping on an airline.
      - ssmoot 10y ago
        That's not really a good comparison. You might as well say driving is within reach for most people. You can drive at 70MPH. Windspeed doesn't impact you. The Cesna will cruise at ~140MPH. Windspeed might delay your arrival to the point that it's much faster to drive for shorter trips though. The jet will do 530MPH. Maybe the Cesna makes sense if there's no reasonably direct route by freeway. Or you're island hopping. It seems like a fairly small window where chartering a Cesna makes sense though (IMO). You can't transport a family of 4 with luggage. It'll be more expensive than the (commercial, not private) Jet, and take about 4 times longer. For every 1-1/2 hours of Jet travel, you'll have to refuel the Cesna as well. And if you though economy class on a commercial Jet was uncomfortable you're in for a rude awakening as well. ;-)
- mikeash 10y ago
  Private jets are typically much smaller and have a correspondingly lower potential for mayhem. Yes, there's overlap, there are small airliners and some big private jets, but overall the risk is different, so there's no reason to expect the security measures to be the same.
  - ssmoot 10y ago
    The Falcon 2000 she flew on this morning is about 1/3 the weight and fuel load of the SWA 737 she might have otherwise. I'm not sure what's unreasonable about the comparison. If the TSA were actually necessary, it would seem like a huge gap in security to allow just anyone with the cash to charter a few private jets around the country.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      And that 737 is in turn about 1/3rd the weight and fuel load of the 767s that crashed into the World Trade Center. That's about a factor of 10 difference in kinetic and chemical energy from that Falcon 2000. If 9/11 had been carried out with Falcon 2000s we'd be talking about good the repairs look and how you can barely tell where the holes were on the WTC towers. I'm not calling the comparison unreasonable, I'm simply saying that the two are not the same, so it's perfectly reasonable for the security to be different too.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I'll take "Common Carriers" for $400 , Alex. Just holding GenAv to common carrier standards for a sense of a level playing field seems silly to me. Worse is still worse.

CheckHook 10y ago

> iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. Most airlines provide the same digital boarding passes, I often travel with my pass added to Apple Wallet. > If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're subjected to currently. The problem here is that it's not just "your own risk" if that plane is directed at a populated area.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
Directed by whom? There is no conceivable threat that would make a pilot agree to fly their plane into a building, and reinforced cockpit doors make it implausible to enter the cockpit without damaging the airplane past the point of flying - and passengers wouldn't stand for it anyway. It's a crap comparison, anyway - the TSA is better at finding toys than they are at finding bombs and weapons. Dogs and x-ray detectors could do just as well, and "alternative airports" could choose to have those.
- jlewallen 10y ago
  > and passengers wouldn't stand for it anyway. This. We live in a different world now. I find it very difficult to imagine a plane full of people not standing up together to take down a threat.

mikeash 10y ago

I like the idea of an "at your own risk" option, but it'll never happen. Since 9/11, a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground (or at least in tall buildings), not just passengers. We can certainly debate whether that's necessary or useful (I'd argue that we could do far less than we currently do), but I don't think you'll ever get the public to agree to allowing airline flights with no security screening, even if you can convince everyone to take a libertarian approach to it.

orblivion 10y ago
To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.
- mikeash 10y ago
  That's far from guaranteed to work. And are you going to be paying for the F-16s on hot standby around the country?
  - joering2 10y ago
    Unless you don't live in USA or you don't pay your taxes, you already pay for it -- a.k.a Norad. Besides, since 911 the doors of plane cockpits are almost like a bank vault.
    - peppaz 10y ago
      Yes, even to the point of locking out the co-pilot for a suicide mission. :(
      - protomyth 10y ago
        Europe didn't (doesn't?) have the 2 person rule like the US does.
  - s_m_t 10y ago

rhino369 10y ago

We have "at your own risk" airtravel in the form of private and chartered flights. There aren't enough people ready and willing to take that risk to make it a competitive business model for airlines. They are a business that only works at massive scale due to extreme competition on price.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Some of it isn't pure price competition; it's also actual economy of scale, especially with respect to financing of fleets.
hammock 10y ago
It's regulations in large part that draw the line between chartered flights and heavily regulated common carrier flights preventing better air travel from growing.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

Independent of the security theater problem, we (collectively) beat the air travel system like a rented mule.

bogomipz 10y ago
Do we? Because I feel like the airlines beat passengers like pieces of cattle. I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  When I was a kid there was no security. My Mom and Dad would make us put on a tie to go get somebody at the airport. And if you could afford it, they called you part of "the jet set." I bet this - where more people can use air travel - is better. It's just not special any more. UX is a secondary consideration.

cloudjacker 10y ago

I arrive at the airport in a Lyft. I walk up to the security checkpoint checkpoint, where I show the agent my phone. They see my boarding pass with the green checkmark and send me to the empty TSA Pre line. I walk through the metal detector with no adjustments to my attire. I am at the gate in 5 minutes. I like how trains basically let you show up last minute, and a 3 hour train ride actually means a 3 hour train ride, compared to airport, checkpoints and boarding time, possibly waiting on the runway, and air time. But you really just need to upgrade your travel accommodations to make your airport experience more seamless.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Agree. My $100 Global Entry (includes TSA Pre) fee is my hedge against the American public's apathy towards the TSA.
- ihsw 10y ago
  It's not just the TSA they are apathetic towards -- it is all government activities.
- sosborn 10y ago
  > My $100 Global Entry (includes TSA Pre) fee is my hedge against the American public's apathy towards the TSA. I don't blame you for paying that fee, but doesn't that just feed the monster?
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    Starving the monster doesn't work. Besides, "anti-TSA" is painting with too broad a brush. Air Marshals are part of the TSA, as are a myriad of other useful agencies. Its really just the pre-screen and invasive checks that need to stop. I think we all can agree that a dedicated force of Air Marshals is a good idea, right? As is the "intelligence" unit who is looking for active threats vs Airports.
    - Amorymeltzer 10y ago

cloudjacker 10y ago

It is funny that the article is about people like you. > there's other evidence that 9/11 led to an increase in driving, which cost at least a thousand lives

geophile 10y ago

A term I have coined: "TSA Radius" -- the distance below which you would rather drive than fly. For me this is currently about 600 miles, but may increase with the news about spectacularly long security lines.

ams6110 10y ago

I assume you didn't take Amtrak? My last straw with them was arriving at my destination nearly 24 hours late, after two separate breakdowns, and an accident involving a car at a crossing.

kazinator 10y ago

> If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s ... ... that airport and flights emanating from it would be perfectly safe! Why? Because, like everyone, terrorists, too, would love this airport so much, they wouldn't want to do anything to prevent it from operating.

noonespecial 10y ago

Sounds like there's a fascinating differential equation in there somewhere. The TSA uses as much money as possible and provides as little service as it can get away with because it has essentially zero accountability. The wait times and hassle increase until its easier just to drive so people fly less, reducing wait time, allowing the TSA to do even less brining wait times back up... The whole system balances at some convergence point. A really sucky convergence point.